rcu.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvfree_rcu: Allocate a page for a single argument
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:35:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210121133510.GB1872@pc638.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210120215403.GH2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 01:54:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 08:57:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2021-01-20 17:21:46 [+0100], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > For a single argument we can directly request a page from a caller
> > > context when a "carry page block" is run out of free spots. Instead
> > > of hitting a slow path we can request an extra page by demand and
> > > proceed with a fast path.
> > > 
> > > A single-argument kvfree_rcu() must be invoked in sleepable contexts,
> > > and that its fallback is the relatively high latency synchronize_rcu().
> > > Single-argument kvfree_rcu() therefore uses GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
> > > to allow limited sleeping within the memory allocator.
> > > 
> > > [ paulmck: Add add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock header comment per Michal Hocko. ]
> > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index e04e336bee42..2014fb22644d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -3465,37 +3465,50 @@ run_page_cache_worker(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +// Record ptr in a page managed by krcp, with the pre-krc_this_cpu_lock()
> > > +// state specified by flags.  If can_alloc is true, the caller must
> > > +// be schedulable and not be holding any locks or mutexes that might be
> > > +// acquired by the memory allocator or anything that it might invoke.
> > > +// Returns true if ptr was successfully recorded, else the caller must
> > > +// use a fallback.
> > 
> > The whole RCU department is getting swamped by the // comments. Can't we
> > have proper kernel doc and /* */ style comments like the remaining part
> > of the kernel?
> 
> Because // comments are easier to type and take up less horizontal space.
> Also, this kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk() function is local to
> kvfree_rcu(), and we don't normally docbook-ify such functions.
> 
> > >  static inline bool
> > > -kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, void *ptr)
> > > +add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu **krcp,
> > > +	unsigned long *flags, void *ptr, bool can_alloc)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode;
> > >  	int idx;
> > >  
> > > -	if (unlikely(!krcp->initialized))
> > > +	*krcp = krc_this_cpu_lock(flags);
> > > +	if (unlikely(!(*krcp)->initialized))
> > >  		return false;
> > >  
> > > -	lockdep_assert_held(&krcp->lock);
> > >  	idx = !!is_vmalloc_addr(ptr);
> > >  
> > >  	/* Check if a new block is required. */
> > > -	if (!krcp->bkvhead[idx] ||
> > > -			krcp->bkvhead[idx]->nr_records == KVFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR) {
> > > -		bnode = get_cached_bnode(krcp);
> > > -		/* Switch to emergency path. */
> > > +	if (!(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx] ||
> > > +			(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx]->nr_records == KVFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR) {
> > > +		bnode = get_cached_bnode(*krcp);
> > > +		if (!bnode && can_alloc) {
> > > +			krc_this_cpu_unlock(*krcp, *flags);
> > > +			bnode = (struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *)
> > 
> > There is no need for this cast.
> 
> Without it, gcc version 7.5.0 says:
> 
> 	warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
> 
> > > +				__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > +			*krcp = krc_this_cpu_lock(flags);
> > 
> > so if bnode is NULL you could retry get_cached_bnode() since it might
> > have been filled (given preemption or CPU migration changed something).
> > Judging from patch #3 you think that a CPU migration is a bad thing. But
> > why?
> 
> So that the later "(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx] = bnode" assignment associates
> it with the correct CPU.
> 
> Though now that you mention it, couldn't the following happen?
> 
> o	Task A on CPU 0 notices that allocation is needed, so it
> 	drops the lock disables migration, and sleeps while
> 	allocating.
> 
> o	Task B on CPU 0 does the same.
> 
> o	The two tasks wake up in some order, and the second one
> 	causes trouble at the "(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx] = bnode"
> 	assignment.
> 
> Uladzislau, do we need to recheck "!(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx]" just after
> the migrate_enable()?  Along with the KVFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR check?
> 
Probably i should have mentioned your sequence you described, that two tasks
can get a page on same CPU, i was thinking about it :) Yep, it can happen
since we drop the lock and a context is fully preemptible, so another one
can trigger kvfree_rcu() ending up at the same place - entering a page
allocator.

I spent some time simulating it, but with no any luck, therefore i did not
reflect this case in the commit message, thus did no pay much attention to
such scenario.

>
> Uladzislau, do we need to recheck "!(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx]" just after
> the migrate_enable()?  Along with the KVFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR check?
>
Two woken tasks will be serialized, i.e. an assignment is protected by
the our local lock. We do krc_this_cpu_lock(flags); as a first step
right after that we do restore a migration. A migration in that case
can occur only when krc_this_cpu_unlock(*krcp, *flags); is invoked.

The scenario you described can happen, in that case a previous bnode
in the drain list can be either empty or partly utilized. But, again
i was non able to trigger such scenario.

If we should fix it, i think we can go with below "alloc_in_progress"
protection:

<snip>
urezki@pc638:~/data/raid0/coding/linux-rcu.git$ git diff
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index cad36074366d..95485ec7267e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -3488,12 +3488,19 @@ add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu **krcp,
        if (!(*krcp)->bkvhead[idx] ||
                        (*krcp)->bkvhead[idx]->nr_records == KVFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR) {
                bnode = get_cached_bnode(*krcp);
-               if (!bnode && can_alloc) {
+               if (!bnode && can_alloc && !(*krcp)->alloc_in_progress)  {
                        migrate_disable();
+
+                       /* Set it before dropping the lock. */
+                       (*krcp)->alloc_in_progress = true;
                        krc_this_cpu_unlock(*krcp, *flags);
+
                        bnode = (struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *)
                                __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN);
                        *krcp = krc_this_cpu_lock(flags);
+
+                       /* Clear it, the lock was taken back. */
+                       (*krcp)->alloc_in_progress = false;
                        migrate_enable();
                }
 
urezki@pc638:~/data/raid0/coding/linux-rcu.git$
<snip>

in that case a second task will follow a fallback path bypassing a page
request. I can send it as a separate patch if there are no any objections.

--
Vlad Rezki

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-21 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-20 16:21 [PATCH 1/3] kvfree_rcu: Allocate a page for a single argument Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2021-01-20 16:21 ` [PATCH 2/3] kvfree_rcu: Use __GFP_NOMEMALLOC for single-argument kvfree_rcu() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2021-01-28 18:06   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-20 16:21 ` [PATCH 3/3] kvfree_rcu: use migrate_disable/enable() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2021-01-20 19:45   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-01-20 21:42     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-23  9:31   ` 回复: " Zhang, Qiang
2021-01-24 21:57     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-25  1:50       ` 回复: " Zhang, Qiang
2021-01-25  2:18         ` Zhang, Qiang
2021-01-25 13:49           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-26  9:33             ` 回复: " Zhang, Qiang
2021-01-26 13:43               ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-20 18:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] kvfree_rcu: Allocate a page for a single argument Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-20 19:57 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-01-20 21:54   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-21 13:35     ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2021-01-21 15:07       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-21 19:17         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-22 11:17     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-01-22 15:28       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-21 12:38   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-22 11:34     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-01-22 14:21       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-25 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-25 14:31   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-25 15:39     ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-25 16:25       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-28 15:11         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-28 15:17           ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-28 15:30             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-01-28 18:02               ` Uladzislau Rezki
     [not found]                 ` <YBPNvbJLg56XU8co@dhcp22.suse.cz>
2021-01-29 16:35                   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-02-01 11:47                     ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-01 14:44                       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-02-03 19:37                       ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20210121133510.GB1872@pc638.lan \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dja@axtens.net \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).