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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 25275C0650F for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E294020820 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725855AbfHKXfr (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:47 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61676 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725730AbfHKXfr (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:47 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7BNVhHA135977; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:03 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uatghk9x5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:03 -0400 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7BNZ37A143945; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:03 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uatghk9ws-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:35:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7BNTmnU027667; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:02 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2u9nj6b7p7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:02 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7BNZ1J128967272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:01 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2F7B2066; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A84B205F; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.138.198]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:35:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 26D9416C1B1A; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 16:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 16:35:04 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rao Shoaib , max.byungchul.park@gmail.com, byungchul.park@lge.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 Message-ID: <20190811233504.GA28441@linux.ibm.com> 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> <20190810024232.GA183658@google.com> <20190810033814.GP28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190810042037.GA175783@google.com> <20190810182446.GT28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190811022658.GA177703@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190811022658.GA177703@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-11_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 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-1908110263 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:26:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:24:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:20:37AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 08:38:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:42:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:52:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > @@ -3459,6 +3645,8 @@ void __init rcu_init(void) > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > int cpu; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + kfree_rcu_batch_init(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens if someone does a kfree_rcu() before this point? It looks > > > > > > > > like it should work, but have you tested it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rcu_early_boot_tests(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, by testing it in rcu_early_boot_tests() and moving the > > > > > > > > call to kfree_rcu_batch_init() here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not tried to do the kfree_rcu() this early. I will try it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, call_rcu() this early came as a surprise to me back in the > > > > > > day, so... ;-) > > > > > > > > > > I actually did get surprised as well! > > > > > > > > > > It appears the timers are not fully initialized so the really early > > > > > kfree_rcu() call from rcu_init() does cause a splat about an initialized > > > > > timer spinlock (even though future kfree_rcu()s and the system are working > > > > > fine all the way into the torture tests). > > > > > > > > > > I think to resolve this, we can just not do batching until early_initcall, > > > > > during which I have an initialization function which switches batching on. > > > > > >From that point it is safe. > > > > > > > > Just go ahead and batch, but don't bother with the timer until > > > > after single-threaded boot is done. For example, you could check > > > > rcu_scheduler_active similar to how sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() does. > > > > (See kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h.) > > > > > > Cool, that works nicely and I tested it. Actually I made it such that we > > > don't need to batch even, before the scheduler is up. I don't see any benefit > > > of that unless we can see a kfree_rcu() flood happening that early at boot > > > which seems highly doubtful as a real world case. > > > > The benefit is removing the kfree_rcu() special cases from the innards > > of RCU, for example, in rcu_do_batch(). Another benefit is removing the > > current restriction on the position of the rcu_head structure within the > > enclosing data structure. > > > > So it would be good to avoid the current kfree_rcu() special casing within > > RCU itself. > > > > Or are you using some trick that avoids both the batching and the current > > kfree_rcu() special casing? > > Oh. I see what you mean. Would it be Ok with you to have that be a follow up > patch? I am not getting rid (yet) of the special casing in rcu_do_batch in > this patch, but can do that in another patch. I am OK having that in another patch, and I will be looking over yours and Byungchul's two patches tomorrow. If they look OK, I will queue them. However, I won't send them upstream without a follow-on patch that gets rid of the kfree_rcu() special casing within rcu_do_batch() and perhaps elsewhere. This follow-on patch would of course also need to change rcuperf appropriately. > For now I am just doing something like the following in kfree_call_rcu(). I > was almost about to hit send on the v1 and I have been testing this a lot so > I'll post it anyway; and we can discuss more about this point on that. > > +void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp; > + bool monitor_todo; > + > + /* kfree_call_rcu() batching requires timers to be up. If the scheduler > + * is not yet up, just skip batching and do non-batched kfree_call_rcu(). > + */ > + if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING) > + return kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(head, func); > + As a stopgap until the follow-on patch, this looks fine. Thanx, Paul