Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvfree_rcu: Allocate a page for a single argument

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 04:17:01PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-01-21 16:11:52, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > 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
> > > > > 
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >     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.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > 
> > > > 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:
> > 
> > <snip>
> >     /* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */
> >     if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> >         goto nopage;
> > <snip>
> 
> Yes this is a recursion protection.
> 
> > What about any deadlocking in regards to below following flags?
> > 
> > GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
> 
> and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC will make sure that the allocation will not consume
> all the memory reserves. The later should be clarified in one of your
> patches I have acked IIRC.
>
Yep, it is clarified and reflected in another patch you ACKed.

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki