RCU Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
	mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
	fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page allocator for PREEMPT_RT
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 19:34:41 +0200
Message-ID: <20200707173441.GA28267@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200706210645.GJ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 02:06:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:19:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2020-07-02 09:48:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > > > > > (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING). As of -rc3 it should complain about
> > > > > > printk() which is why it is still disabled by default.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixing that should be "interesting".  In particular, RCU CPU stall
> > > > > warnings rely on the raw spin lock to reduce false positives due
> > > > > to race conditions.  Some thought will be required here.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't get this part. Can you explain/give me an example where to look
> > > > at?
> > > 
> > > Starting from the scheduler-clock interrupt's call into RCU,
> > > we have rcu_sched_clock_irq() which calls rcu_pending() which
> > > calls check_cpu_stall() which calls either print_cpu_stall() or
> > > print_other_cpu_stall(), depending on whether the stall is happening on
> > > the current CPU or on some other CPU, respectively.
> > > 
> > > Both of these last functions acquire the rcu_node structure's raw ->lock
> > > and expect to do printk()s while holding it.
> > 
> > …
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Okay. So in the RT queue there is a printk() rewrite which fixes this
> > kind of things. Upstream the printk() interface is still broken in this
> > regard and therefore CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is disabled.
> > [Earlier the workqueue would also trigger a warning but this has been
> > fixed as of v5.8-rc1.]
> > This was just me explaining why this bad, what debug function would
> > report it and why it is not enabled by default.
> 
> Whew!!!  ;-)
> 
> > > > > > So assume that this is fixed and enabled then on !PREEMPT_RT it will
> > > > > > complain that you have a raw_spinlock_t acquired (the one from patch
> > > > > > 02/17) and attempt to acquire a spinlock_t in the memory allocator.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Given that the slab allocator doesn't acquire any locks until it gets
> > > > > a fair way in, wouldn't it make sense to allow a "shallow" allocation
> > > > > while a raw spinlock is held?  This would require yet another GFP_ flag,
> > > > > but that won't make all that much of a difference in the total.  ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > That would be one way of dealing with. But we could go back to
> > > > spinlock_t and keep the memory allocation even for RT as is. I don't see
> > > > a downside of this. And we would worry about kfree_rcu() from real
> > > > IRQ-off region once we get to it.
> > > 
> > > Once we get to it, your thought would be to do per-CPU queuing of
> > > memory from IRQ-off kfree_rcu(), and have IRQ work or some such clean
> > > up after it?  Or did you have some other trick in mind?
> > 
> > So for now I would very much like to revert the raw_spinlock_t back to
> > the spinlock_t and add a migrate_disable() just avoid the tiny
> > possible migration between obtaining the CPU-ptr and acquiring the lock
> > (I think Joel was afraid of performance hit).
> 
> Performance is indeed a concern here.
> 
> > Should we get to a *real* use case where someone must invoke kfree_rcu()
> > from a hard-IRQ-off region then we can think what makes sense. per-CPU
> > queues and IRQ-work would be one way of dealing with it.
> 
> It looks like workqueues can also be used, at least in their current
> form.  And timers.
> 
> Vlad, Joel, thoughts?
>
Some high level thoughts:

Currently everything is done in workqueue context, it means all freeing
happens there. For RT kernel we can invoke a page allocator only for single
kfree_rcu() argument(though we skip it). As for double one, it is impossible,
that is why a simple path is used by linking rcu_head among each other for
further reclaim in wq context. As of now, for RT, everything is already
deferred.

If we revert to spinlock_t then calling of kfree_rcu() from hard IRQ
context is broken, even though we think that for RT kernel it will
never happen. Therefore i do not see a clear motivation and benefits
why we should revert to spinlock_t.

IMHO, if we can avoid of such drawback i would go with that way, i.e.
i would not like to think what to do with that when it becomes broken.

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki

  reply index

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-24 20:12 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] kfree_rcu updates for v5.9 Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/17] rcu: Fix a kernel-doc warnings for "count" paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/17] rcu/tree: Keep kfree_rcu() awake during lock contention paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page allocator for PREEMPT_RT paulmck
2020-06-30 16:45   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-06-30 18:35     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-02 14:12       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-02 16:48         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-02 20:19           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-06 21:06             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-07 17:34               ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2020-07-07 18:45                 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-08 18:48                   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-02 19:45         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-06 19:42           ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-06 19:55             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-06 20:29               ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-07  9:27                 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-15 13:38     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-15 14:16       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-15 14:20         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/17] rcu/tree: Repeat the monitor if any free channel is busy paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/17] rcu/tree: Make debug_objects logic independent of rcu_head paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu/tree: Simplify KFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR macro paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/17] rcu/tree: Move kfree_rcu_cpu locking/unlocking to separate functions paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu/tree: Use static initializer for krc.lock paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/17] rcu/tree: cache specified number of objects paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/17] rcu/tree: Maintain separate array for vmalloc ptrs paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu/tiny: support vmalloc in tiny-RCU paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/17] rcu: Rename *_kfree_callback/*_kfree_rcu_offset/kfree_call_* paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/17] mm/list_lru.c: Rename kvfree_rcu() to local variant paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/17] rcu: Introduce 2 arg kvfree_rcu() interface paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/17] rcu: Support reclaim for head-less object paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/17] rcu: Introduce single argument kvfree_rcu() interface paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/17] lib/test_vmalloc.c: Add test cases for kvfree_rcu() paulmck

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=20200707173441.GA28267@pc636 \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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

RCU Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/0 rcu/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 rcu rcu/ https://lore.kernel.org/rcu \
		rcu@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index rcu

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.rcu


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git