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=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,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 847BBC433E9 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3369D64E02 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232411AbhA1PMl (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:12:41 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52234 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232172AbhA1PMi (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:12:38 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8775FC061573; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:11:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id b2so8071474lfq.0; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:11:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jYUwfR//UNM7rH1VOEkn/K+30W18z8yGULkJIiL5QLc=; b=l2nO/0WO6oAnUY51rYxsB80i8T+XJ1gLQiINbegvpfOtC6kmQjay/cnYY4IuSUNMUP 98iplaDKdkkr/kUAhU0fOs+7KJ90XM10QkoW/+12cbf4L8U1/tpHGTh5sJw4TCW63tD+ Yny9zus3jnEzGzobQj2N8jm2iUM9rpeY7ncdGsDrGS7Bjl/9A3r3TmIpCuYw1P0izAdR wBO3ZbxMMEyxQePSZ3O4tmgdqQLypLSQn65vSxZfq/bR0pLbKZ2UbbIDG53XfmbQqtL0 Mw4B7vSS84cXDmx6D00cNu0TWtLx4JrQbLGOFhKA37atT/puMLJlKJjRgz+DQvWTYAN/ A3Ig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jYUwfR//UNM7rH1VOEkn/K+30W18z8yGULkJIiL5QLc=; b=pCx3CK080MOtlTl9bm84s3RabPQ1Ui+EFRG3N/szVEWUfwDCdBQIaC68G6qBv0e5f+ kaFbdqXGFR537pXS9Xshqi3nJegFdfIzP+5LYx1I0PKyAQYL6rbEtIkg4bZJzSus9QJo 4BljgxB2nnK9BlNQHYSOUv1lVbnS28R0D50gq696W1PixPjuLcTee/1HugnZjERlK/zw nYp6L3qQk/o2EuwXYC5fLRAnf4WK4rHSlsiNnM3v2EKuyraagwYsZYfRm0ZzUPExj8I5 52pNyeL4PN+KxKrxGDf1PRnd2W7wsVv31g+pMfqUKmejktScjufXTOPPaN38pRNhadVZ 3mVw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pS6g5Z3KERsOJNN7rkT9MNCRGAc/kyhTt9iuf/r4e7VxvfHnP voGIcJyTu9QZ4VEoOhi5BWc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwTqEF9wklNavo3L5y9Lt1QHNJzWUHVrPrxHKvLTIpS8M1c2jhRmWPLrV/DjXEe9IItQyP3w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:49b:: with SMTP id v27mr8223299lfq.220.1611846716011; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc638.lan (h5ef52e3d.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r26sm1708382lfe.137.2021.01.28.07.11.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:11:55 -0800 (PST) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:11:52 +0100 To: Michal Hocko Cc: Michal Hocko , LKML , RCU , "Paul E . McKenney" , Michael Ellerman , Andrew Morton , Daniel Axtens , Frederic Weisbecker , Neeraj Upadhyay , Joel Fernandes , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvfree_rcu: Allocate a page for a single argument Message-ID: <20210128151152.GA1867@pc638.lan> References: <20210120162148.1973-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20210125132236.GJ827@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210125143150.GA2282@pc638.lan> <20210125153943.GN827@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210125162559.GA52712@pc638.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210125162559.GA52712@pc638.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 05:25:59PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 25-01-21 15:31:50, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On Wed 20-01-21 17:21:46, 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. > > > > > > > > __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL can be quite heavy. It is effectively the most heavy > > > > way to allocate without triggering the OOM killer. Is this really what > > > > you need/want? Is __GFP_NORETRY too weak? > > > > > > > Hm... We agreed to proceed with limited lightwait memory direct reclaim. > > > Johannes Weiner proposed to go with __GFP_NORETRY flag as a starting > > > point: https://www.spinics.net/lists/rcu/msg02856.html > > > > > > > > > So I'm inclined to suggest __GFP_NORETRY as a starting point, and make > > > further decisions based on instrumentation of the success rates of > > > these opportunistic allocations. > > > > > > > I completely agree with Johannes here. > > > > > but for some reason, i can't find a tail or head of it, we introduced > > > __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL what is a heavy one from a time consuming point of view. > > > What we would like to avoid. > > > > Not that I object to this use but I think it would be much better to use > > it based on actual data. Going along with it right away might become a > > future burden to make any changes in this aspect later on due to lack of > > exact reasoning. General rule of thumb for __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is really > > try as hard as it can get without being really disruptive (like OOM > > killing something). And your wording didn't really give me that > > impression. > > > Initially i proposed just to go with GFP_NOWAIT flag. But later on there > was a discussion about a fallback path, that uses synchronize_rcu() can be > slow, thus minimizing its hitting would be great. So, here we go with a > trade off. > > Doing it hard as __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL can do, is not worth(IMHO), but to have some > light-wait requests would be acceptable. That is why __GFP_NORETRY was proposed. > > There were simple criterias we discussed which we would like to achieve: > > a) minimize a fallback hitting; > b) avoid of OOM involving; > c) avoid of dipping into the emergency reserves. See kvfree_rcu: Use __GFP_NOMEMALLOC for single-argument kvfree_rcu() > One question here. Since the code that triggers a page request can be directly invoked from reclaim context as well as outside of it. We had a concern about if any recursion is possible, but what i see it is safe. The context that does it can not enter it twice: /* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */ if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) goto nopage; What about any deadlocking in regards to below following flags? GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN Thanks! -- Vlad Rezki