From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C7AC433FF for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5165F204EC for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2407246AbfHIPQ2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:16:28 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:10872 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726255AbfHIPQ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:16:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x79FCOLq121420 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:16:25 -0400 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2u99wu48qq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:16:25 -0400 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:16:25 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e11.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.198) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:16:19 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x79FGI7T8978824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:18 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC8EB2067; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E898B2068; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.154]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:16:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7B4316C9A67; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:16:19 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Byungchul Park , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rao Shoaib , max.byungchul.park@gmail.com, kernel-team@android.com, kernel-team@lge.com, Davidlohr Bueso , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu batching Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190806212041.118146-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190806235631.GU28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190807094504.GB169551@google.com> <20190807175215.GE28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190808095232.GA30401@X58A-UD3R> <20190808125607.GB261256@google.com> <20190808233014.GA184373@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190808233014.GA184373@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19080915-2213-0000-0000-000003BA80F6 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011575; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000287; SDB=6.01244366; UDB=6.00656504; IPR=6.01025848; MB=3.00028109; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-08-09 15:16:23 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19080915-2214-0000-0000-00005F957A96 Message-Id: <20190809151619.GD28441@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-09_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908090153 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:30:14PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:56:07AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:52:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:52:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:20:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > [ . . . ] > > > > > > > + for (; head; head = next) { > > > > > > > + next = head->next; > > > > > > > + head->next = NULL; > > > > > > > + __call_rcu(head, head->func, -1, 1); > > > > > > > > > > > > We need at least a cond_resched() here. 200,000 times through this loop > > > > > > in a PREEMPT=n kernel might not always be pretty. Except that this is > > > > > > invoked directly from kfree_rcu() which might be invoked with interrupts > > > > > > disabled, which precludes calls to cond_resched(). So the realtime guys > > > > > > are not going to be at all happy with this loop. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, will add this here. > > > > > > > > > > > And this loop could be avoided entirely by having a third rcu_head list > > > > > > in the kfree_rcu_cpu structure. Yes, some of the batches would exceed > > > > > > KFREE_MAX_BATCH, but given that they are invoked from a workqueue, that > > > > > > should be OK, or at least more OK than queuing 200,000 callbacks with > > > > > > interrupts disabled. (If it turns out not to be OK, an array of rcu_head > > > > > > pointers can be used to reduce the probability of oversized batches.) > > > > > > This would also mean that the equality comparisons with KFREE_MAX_BATCH > > > > > > need to become greater-or-equal comparisons or some such. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, certainly we can do these kinds of improvements after this patch, and > > > > > then add more tests to validate the improvements. > > > > > > > > Out of pity for people bisecting, we need this fixed up front. > > > > > > > > My suggestion is to just allow ->head to grow until ->head_free becomes > > > > available. That way you are looping with interrupts and preemption > > > > enabled in workqueue context, which is much less damaging than doing so > > > > with interrupts disabled, and possibly even from hard-irq context. > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > Or after introducing another limit like KFREE_MAX_BATCH_FORCE(>= > > > KFREE_MAX_BATCH): > > > > > > 1. Try to drain it on hitting KFREE_MAX_BATCH as it does. > > > > > > On success: Same as now. > > > On fail: let ->head grow and drain if possible, until reaching to > > > KFREE_MAX_BATCH_FORCE. > > > > > > 3. On hitting KFREE_MAX_BATCH_FORCE, give up batching but handle one by > > > one from now on to prevent too many pending requests from being > > > queued for batching work. > > > > I also agree. But this _FORCE thing will still not solve the issue Paul is > > raising which is doing this loop possibly in irq disabled / hardirq context. > > We can't even cond_resched() here. In fact since _FORCE is larger, it will be > > even worse. Consider a real-time system with a lot of memory, in this case > > letting ->head grow large is Ok, but looping for long time in IRQ disabled > > would not be Ok. > > > > But I could make it something like: > > 1. Letting ->head grow if ->head_free busy > > 2. If head_free is busy, then just queue/requeue the monitor to try again. > > > > This would even improve performance, but will still risk going out of memory. > > It seems I can indeed hit an out of memory condition once I changed it to > "letting list grow" (diff is below which applies on top of this patch) while > at the same time removing the schedule_timeout(2) and replacing it with > cond_resched() in the rcuperf test. I think the reason is the rcuperf test > starves the worker threads that are executing in workqueue context after a > grace period and those are unable to get enough CPU time to kfree things fast > enough. But I am not fully sure about it and need to test/trace more to > figure out why this is happening. > > If I add back the schedule_uninterruptibe_timeout(2) call, the out of memory > situation goes away. > > Clearly we need to do more work on this patch. > > In the regular kfree_rcu_no_batch() case, I don't hit this issue. I believe > that since the kfree is happening in softirq context in the _no_batch() case, > it fares better. The question then I guess is how do we run the rcu_work in a > higher priority context so it is not starved and runs often enough. I'll > trace more. > > Perhaps I can also lower the priority of the rcuperf threads to give the > worker thread some more room to run and see if anything changes. But I am not > sure then if we're preparing the code for the real world with such > modifications. > > Any thoughts? Several! With luck, perhaps some are useful. ;-) o Increase the memory via kvm.sh "--memory 1G" or more. The default is "--memory 500M". o Leave a CPU free to run things like the RCU grace-period kthread. You might also need to bind that kthread to that CPU. o Alternatively, use the "rcutree.kthread_prio=" boot parameter to boost the RCU kthreads to real-time priority. This won't do anything for ksoftirqd, though. o Along with the above boot parameter, use "rcutree.use_softirq=0" to cause RCU to use kthreads instead of softirq. (You might well find issues in priority setting as well, but might as well find them now if so!) o With any of the above, invoke rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() along with cond_resched() in your kfree_rcu() loop. This simulates a trip to userspace for nohz_full CPUs, so if this helps for non-nohz_full CPUs, adjustments to the kernel might be called for. Probably others, but this should do for a start. Thanx, Paul > thanks, > > - Joel > > ---8<----------------------- > > >From 098d62e5a1b84a11139236c9b1f59e7f32289b40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:29:58 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] Let list grow > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) > --- > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 2 +- > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c > index 34658760da5e..7dc831db89ae 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c > @@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg) > } > } > > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(2); > + cond_resched(); > } while (!torture_must_stop() && ++l < kfree_loops); > > kfree(alloc_ptrs); > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index bdbd483606ce..bab77220d8ac 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -2595,7 +2595,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu); > > > /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining batch */ > -#define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES 50 > +#define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (HZ / 20) > > /* > * Maximum number of kfree(s) to batch, if limit is hit > @@ -2684,27 +2684,19 @@ static void kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krc, > { > struct rcu_head *head, *next; > > - /* It is time to do bulk reclaim after grace period */ > - krc->monitor_todo = false; > + /* It is time to do bulk reclaim after grace period. */ > if (queue_kfree_rcu_work(krc)) { > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags); > return; > } > > - /* > - * Use non-batch regular call_rcu for kfree_rcu in case things are too > - * busy and batching of kfree_rcu could not be used. > - */ > - head = krc->head; > - krc->head = NULL; > - krc->kfree_batch_len = 0; > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags); > - > - for (; head; head = next) { > - next = head->next; > - head->next = NULL; > - __call_rcu(head, head->func, -1, 1); > + /* Previous batch did not get free yet, let us try again soon. */ > + if (krc->monitor_todo == false) { > + schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), > + &krc->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES/4); > + krc->monitor_todo = true; > } > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags); > } > > /* > -- > 2.23.0.rc1.153.gdeed80330f-goog >