linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 2/4] percpu: split __pcpu_balance_workfn()
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:20:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YGIacjqWI8v+TESq@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGION8fYFy0uVVlm@google.com>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:28:23PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:06:24PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > __pcpu_balance_workfn() became fairly big and hard to follow, but in
> > fact it consists of two fully independent parts, responsible for
> > the destruction of excessive free chunks and population of necessarily
> > amount of free pages.
> > 
> > In order to simplify the code and prepare for adding of a new
> > functionality, split it in two functions:
> > 
> >   1) pcpu_balance_free,
> >   2) pcpu_balance_populated.
> > 
> > Move the taking/releasing of the pcpu_alloc_mutex to an upper level
> > to keep the current synchronization in place.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/percpu.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> > index 78c55c73fa28..015d076893f5 100644
> > --- a/mm/percpu.c
> > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > @@ -1930,31 +1930,22 @@ void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * __pcpu_balance_workfn - manage the amount of free chunks and populated pages
> > + * pcpu_balance_free - manage the amount of free chunks
> >   * @type: chunk type
> >   *
> > - * Reclaim all fully free chunks except for the first one.  This is also
> > - * responsible for maintaining the pool of empty populated pages.  However,
> > - * it is possible that this is called when physical memory is scarce causing
> > - * OOM killer to be triggered.  We should avoid doing so until an actual
> > - * allocation causes the failure as it is possible that requests can be
> > - * serviced from already backed regions.
> > + * Reclaim all fully free chunks except for the first one.
> >   */
> > -static void __pcpu_balance_workfn(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> > +static void pcpu_balance_free(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> >  {
> > -	/* gfp flags passed to underlying allocators */
> > -	const gfp_t gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> >  	LIST_HEAD(to_free);
> >  	struct list_head *pcpu_slot = pcpu_chunk_list(type);
> >  	struct list_head *free_head = &pcpu_slot[pcpu_nr_slots - 1];
> >  	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, *next;
> > -	int slot, nr_to_pop, ret;
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * There's no reason to keep around multiple unused chunks and VM
> >  	 * areas can be scarce.  Destroy all free chunks except for one.
> >  	 */
> > -	mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> >  	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
> >  
> >  	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, free_head, list) {
> > @@ -1982,6 +1973,25 @@ static void __pcpu_balance_workfn(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> >  		pcpu_destroy_chunk(chunk);
> >  		cond_resched();
> >  	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * pcpu_balance_populated - manage the amount of populated pages
> > + * @type: chunk type
> > + *
> > + * Maintain a certain amount of populated pages to satisfy atomic allocations.
> > + * It is possible that this is called when physical memory is scarce causing
> > + * OOM killer to be triggered.  We should avoid doing so until an actual
> > + * allocation causes the failure as it is possible that requests can be
> > + * serviced from already backed regions.
> > + */
> > +static void pcpu_balance_populated(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> > +{
> > +	/* gfp flags passed to underlying allocators */
> > +	const gfp_t gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> > +	struct list_head *pcpu_slot = pcpu_chunk_list(type);
> > +	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
> > +	int slot, nr_to_pop, ret;
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Ensure there are certain number of free populated pages for
> > @@ -2051,8 +2061,6 @@ static void __pcpu_balance_workfn(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> >  			goto retry_pop;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> > -
> > -	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -2149,14 +2157,18 @@ static void pcpu_shrink_populated(enum pcpu_chunk_type type)
> >   * pcpu_balance_workfn - manage the amount of free chunks and populated pages
> >   * @work: unused
> >   *
> > - * Call __pcpu_balance_workfn() for each chunk type.
> > + * Call pcpu_balance_free() and pcpu_balance_populated() for each chunk type.
> >   */
> >  static void pcpu_balance_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> >  {
> >  	enum pcpu_chunk_type type;
> >  
> > -	for (type = 0; type < PCPU_NR_CHUNK_TYPES; type++)
> > -		__pcpu_balance_workfn(type);
> > +	for (type = 0; type < PCPU_NR_CHUNK_TYPES; type++) {
> > +		mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> > +		pcpu_balance_free(type);
> > +		pcpu_balance_populated(type);
> > +		mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > -- 
> > 2.30.2
> > 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
> 
> This makes sense. If you want me to pick this and the last patch up
> first I can. Otherwise, do you mind moving this to the front of the
> stack because it is a clean up?

It's up to you :)
Sure, I can move it to the front, will do in the next version.

Thank you for taking a look!


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-29 18:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-24 19:06 [PATCH rfc 0/4] percpu: partial chunk depopulation Roman Gushchin
2021-03-24 19:06 ` [PATCH rfc 1/4] percpu: implement " Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29 17:20   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-03-29 18:29     ` Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29 19:28       ` Dennis Zhou
2021-03-29 19:40         ` Roman Gushchin
2021-03-24 19:06 ` [PATCH rfc 2/4] percpu: split __pcpu_balance_workfn() Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29 17:28   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-03-29 18:20     ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2021-03-24 19:06 ` [PATCH rfc 3/4] percpu: on demand chunk depopulation Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29  8:37   ` [percpu] 28c9dada65: invoked_oom-killer:gfp_mask=0x kernel test robot
2021-03-29 18:19     ` Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29 19:21   ` [PATCH rfc 3/4] percpu: on demand chunk depopulation Dennis Zhou
2021-03-29 20:10     ` Roman Gushchin
2021-03-29 23:12       ` Dennis Zhou
2021-03-30  1:04         ` Roman Gushchin
2021-03-24 19:06 ` [PATCH rfc 4/4] percpu: fix a comment about the chunks ordering Roman Gushchin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YGIacjqWI8v+TESq@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dennis@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH rfc 2/4] percpu: split __pcpu_balance_workfn()' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox