mm/vmalloc: remove preempt_disable/enable when do preloading
Subsystems (2)
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH v3 1/3 mm/vmalloc: remove preempt_disable/enable when do preloading
Some background. The preemption was disabled before to guarantee that a preloaded object is available for a CPU, it was stored for.
The aim was to not allocate in atomic context when spinlock is taken later, for regular vmap allocations. But that approach conflicts with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT philosophy. It means that calling spin_lock() with disabled preemption is forbidden in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernel.
Therefore, get rid of preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() when the preload is done for splitting purpose. As a result we do not guarantee now that a CPU is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not, with this change.
For example i run the special test case that follows the preload pattern and path. 20 "unbind" threads run it and each does 1000000 allocations. Only 3.5 times among 1000000 a CPU was not preloaded. So it can happen but the number is negligible.
V2 - > V3:
- update the commit message
V1 -> V2:
- move __this_cpu_cmpxchg check when spin_lock is taken, as proposed by Andrew Morton
- add more explanation in regard of preloading
- adjust and move some comments
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
mm/vmalloc.c +20 -17
@@ -1078,31 +1078,34 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, retry:/* -* Preload this CPU with one extra vmap_area object to ensure -* that we have it available when fit type of free area is -* NE_FIT_TYPE. +* Preload this CPU with one extra vmap_area object. It is used +* when fit type of free area is NE_FIT_TYPE. Please note, it +* does not guarantee that an allocation occurs on a CPU that +* is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not. +* It can happen because of cpu migration, because there is a +* race until the below spinlock is taken. * * The preload is done in non-atomic context, thus it allows us * to use more permissive allocation masks to be more stable under -* low memory condition and high memory pressure. +* low memory condition and high memory pressure. In rare case, +* if not preloaded, GFP_NOWAIT is used. * -* Even if it fails we do not really care about that. Just proceed -* as it is. "overflow" path will refill the cache we allocate from. +* Set "pva" to NULL here, because of "retry" path. */ -preempt_disable (); -if (!__this_cpu_read (ne_fit_preload_node)) { -preempt_enable (); - pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node); -preempt_disable (); + pva =NULL ; -if (__this_cpu_cmpxchg (ne_fit_preload_node,NULL , pva)) { -if (pva) -kmem_cache_free (vmap_area_cachep, pva); - } - } +if (!this_cpu_read (ne_fit_preload_node)) +/* +* Even if it fails we do not really care about that. +* Just proceed as it is. If needed "overflow" path +* will refill the cache we allocate from. +*/ + pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node);spin_lock (&vmap_area_lock); -preempt_enable (); + +if (pva &&__this_cpu_cmpxchg (ne_fit_preload_node,NULL , pva)) +kmem_cache_free (vmap_area_cachep, pva);/* * If an allocation fails, the "vend" address is
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH v3 2/3 mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when do preloading
alloc_vmap_area() is given a gfp_mask for the page allocator. Let's respect that mask and consider it even in the case when doing regular CPU preloading, i.e. where a context can sleep.
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
mm/vmalloc.c +4 -4
@@ -1064,9 +1064,9 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,return ERR_PTR (-EBUSY );might_sleep (); + gfp_mask = gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ; - va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, - gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK , node); + va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);if (unlikely (!va))return ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM );
@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,* Only scan the relevant parts containing pointers to other objects * to avoid false negatives. */ -kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ); +kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask); retry:/*
@@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,* Just proceed as it is. If needed "overflow" path * will refill the cache we allocate from. */ - pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node); + pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);spin_lock (&vmap_area_lock);
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when do preloading
Quoted 3 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
alloc_vmap_area()is given agfp_maskfor the page allocator. Let's respect that mask and consider it even in the case when doing regular CPU preloading, i.e. where a context can sleep.
This is explaining what but it doesn't say why. I would go with "
Allocation functions should comply with the given gfp_mask as much as possible. The preallocation code in alloc_vmap_area doesn't follow that pattern and it is using a hardcoded GFP_KERNEL. Although this doesn't really make much difference because vmalloc is not GFP_NOWAIT compliant in general (e.g. page table allocations are GFP_KERNEL) there is no reason to spread that bad habit and it is good to fix the antipattern. "
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>
Quoted 41 lines
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)mm/vmalloc.c +4
-4@@ -1064,9 +1064,9 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,return ERR_PTR (-EBUSY );might_sleep (); + gfp_mask = gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ; - va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, - gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK , node); + va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);if (unlikely (!va))return ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM );@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,* Only scan the relevant parts containing pointers to other objects * to avoid false negatives. */ -kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ); +kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask); retry:/* @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,* Just proceed as it is. If needed "overflow" path * will refill the cache we allocate from. */ - pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node); + pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);spin_lock (&vmap_area_lock);Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Uladzislau Rezki
maintainerRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when do preloading
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
alloc_vmap_area()is given agfp_maskfor the page allocator. Let's respect that mask and consider it even in the case when doing regular CPU preloading, i.e. where a context can sleep.
Quoted 9 lines
This is explaining what but it doesn't say why. I would go with "
Allocation functions should comply with the givengfp_maskas much as possible. The preallocation code inalloc_vmap_areadoesn't follow that pattern and it is using a hardcodedGFP_KERNEL. Although this doesn't really make much difference because vmalloc is notGFP_NOWAITcompliant in general (e.g. page table allocations areGFP_KERNEL) there is no reason to spread that bad habit and it is good to fix the antipattern. "
I can go with that, agree. I am not sure if i need to update the patch and send v4. Or maybe Andrew can directly update it in his tree.
Andrew, should i send or can update?
Thank you in advance!
--
Vlad Rezki
Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when do preloading
Quoted 13 lines · On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:40:49 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
alloc_vmap_area()is given agfp_maskfor the page allocator. Let's respect that mask and consider it even in the case when doing regular CPU preloading, i.e. where a context can sleep.Quoted 9 lines
This is explaining what but it doesn't say why. I would go with "
Allocation functions should comply with the givengfp_maskas much as possible. The preallocation code inalloc_vmap_areadoesn't follow that pattern and it is using a hardcodedGFP_KERNEL. Although this doesn't really make much difference because vmalloc is notGFP_NOWAITcompliant in general (e.g. page table allocations areGFP_KERNEL) there is no reason to spread that bad habit and it is good to fix the antipattern. "
Quoted 4 lines
I can go with that, agree. I am not sure if i need to update the patch and send v4. Or maybe Andrew can directly update it in his tree.
Andrew, should i send or can update?
I updated the changelog with Michal's words prior to committing. You were cc'ed :)
From: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <[email protected]>
Subject: mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when doing preloading
Allocation functions should comply with the given gfp_mask as much as possible. The preallocation code in alloc_vmap_area doesn't follow that pattern and it is using a hardcoded GFP_KERNEL. Although this doesn't really make much difference because vmalloc is not GFP_NOWAIT compliant in general (e.g. page table allocations are GFP_KERNEL) there is no reason to spread that bad habit and it is good to fix the antipattern.
---
mm/vmalloc.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
mm/vmalloc.c renamed from mm/vmalloc.c~mm-vmalloc-respect-passed-gfp_mask-when-do-preloading +4 -4
@@ -1063,9 +1063,9 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_areareturn ERR_PTR (-EBUSY );might_sleep (); + gfp_mask = gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ; - va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, - gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK , node); + va =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);if (unlikely (!va))return ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM );
@@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area* Only scan the relevant parts containing pointers to other objects * to avoid false negatives. */ -kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask &GFP_RECLAIM_MASK ); +kmemleak_scan_area (&va->rb_node,SIZE_MAX , gfp_mask); retry:/*
@@ -1099,7 +1099,7 @@ retry:* Just proceed as it is. If needed "overflow" path * will refill the cache we allocate from. */ - pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node); + pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep, gfp_mask, node);spin_lock (&vmap_area_lock);
_
Uladzislau Rezki
maintainerRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/vmalloc: respect passed gfp_mask when do preloading
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
This is explaining what but it doesn't say why. I would go with "
Allocation functions should comply with the givengfp_maskas much as possible. The preallocation code inalloc_vmap_areadoesn't follow that pattern and it is using a hardcodedGFP_KERNEL. Although this doesn't really make much difference because vmalloc is notGFP_NOWAITcompliant in general (e.g. page table allocations areGFP_KERNEL) there is no reason to spread that bad habit and it is good to fix the antipattern. "
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I can go with that, agree. I am not sure if i need to update the patch and send v4. Or maybe Andrew can directly update it in his tree.
Andrew, should i send or can update?
I updated the changelog with Michal's words prior to committing. You were cc'ed :)
Ah, i saw the email stating that the patch has been added to the "mm" tree, but i did not check the commit message. Now i see everything is sorted out :)
Thank you!
--
Vlad Rezki
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH v3 3/3 mm/vmalloc: add more comments to the adjust_va_to_fit_type()
In reply to Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)When fit type is NE_FIT_TYPE there is a need in one extra object. Usually the "ne_fit_preload_node" per-CPU variable has it and there is no need in GFP_NOWAIT allocation, but there are exceptions.
This commit just adds more explanations, as a result giving answers on questions like when it can occur, how often, under which conditions and what happens if GFP_NOWAIT gets failed.
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
mm/vmalloc.c +13 -0
@@ -969,6 +969,19 @@ adjust_va_to_fit_type(struct vmap_area *va,* There are a few exceptions though, as an example it is * a first allocation (early boot up) when we have "one" * big free space that has to be split. +* +* Also we can hit this path in case of regular "vmap" +* allocations, if "this" current CPU was not preloaded. +* See the comment in alloc_vmap_area() why. If so, then +* GFP_NOWAIT is used instead to get an extra object for +* split purpose. That is rare and most time does not +* occur. +* +* What happens if an allocation gets failed. Basically, +* an "overflow" path is triggered to purge lazily freed +* areas to free some memory, then, the "retry" path is +* triggered to repeat one more time. See more details +* in alloc_vmap_area() function. */ lva =kmem_cache_alloc (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_NOWAIT );if (!lva)
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/vmalloc: add more comments to the adjust_va_to_fit_type()
Quoted 9 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
When fit type is
NE_FIT_TYPEthere is a need in one extra object. Usually the "ne_fit_preload_node" per-CPU variable has it and there is no need inGFP_NOWAITallocation, but there are exceptions.This commit just adds more explanations, as a result giving answers on questions like when it can occur, how often, under which conditions and what happens if
GFP_NOWAITgets failed.Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>
Quoted 31 lines
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)mm/vmalloc.c +13
-0@@ -969,6 +969,19 @@ adjust_va_to_fit_type(struct vmap_area *va,* There are a few exceptions though, as an example it is * a first allocation (early boot up) when we have "one" * big free space that has to be split. +* +* Also we can hit this path in case of regular "vmap" +* allocations, if "this" current CPU was not preloaded. +* See the comment in alloc_vmap_area() why. If so, then +* GFP_NOWAIT is used instead to get an extra object for +* split purpose. That is rare and most time does not +* occur. +* +* What happens if an allocation gets failed. Basically, +* an "overflow" path is triggered to purge lazily freed +* areas to free some memory, then, the "retry" path is +* triggered to repeat one more time. See more details +* in alloc_vmap_area() function. */ lva =kmem_cache_alloc (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_NOWAIT );if (!lva)Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Uladzislau Rezki
maintainerRe: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/vmalloc: add more comments to the adjust_va_to_fit_type()
Quoted 5 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 4 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
When fit type is
NE_FIT_TYPEthere is a need in one extra object. Usually the "ne_fit_preload_node" per-CPU variable has it and there is no need inGFP_NOWAITallocation, but there are exceptions.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
This commit just adds more explanations, as a result giving answers on questions like when it can occur, how often, under which conditions and what happens if
GFP_NOWAITgets failed.Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>Acked-by Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Thanks!
--
Vlad Rezki
Quoted 2 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
Some background. The preemption was disabled before to guarantee that a preloaded object is available for a CPU, it was stored for.
Probably good to be explicit that this has been achieved by combining the disabling the preemption and taking the spin lock while the ne_fit_preload_node is checked resp. repopulated, right?
Quoted 10 lines
The aim was to not allocate in atomic context when spinlock is taken later, for regular vmap allocations. But that approach conflicts with
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RTphilosophy. It means that callingspin_lock()with disabled preemption is forbidden in theCONFIG_PREEMPT_RTkernel.Therefore, get rid of
preempt_disable()andpreempt_enable()when the preload is done for splitting purpose. As a result we do not guarantee now that a CPU is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not, with this change.
by populating the per cpu preload pointer under the vmap_area_lock. This implies that at least each caller which has done the preallocation will not fallback to an atomic allocation later. It is possible that the preallocation would be pointless or that no preallocation is done because of the race but your data shows that this is really rare.
Quoted 14 lines
For example i run the special test case that follows the preload pattern and path. 20 "unbind" threads run it and each does 1000000 allocations. Only 3.5 times among 1000000 a CPU was not preloaded. So it can happen but the number is negligible.
V2 - > V3:
- update the commit messageV1 -> V2:
- move__this_cpu_cmpxchgcheck whenspin_lockis taken, as proposed by Andrew Morton
- add more explanation in regard of preloading
- adjust and move some comments
Quoted 5 lines
Fixes 82dd23e84be3 ("mm/vmalloc.c: preload a CPU with one object for split purpose")Reviewed-by Steven Rostedt (VMware) <[email protected]>Acked-by Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>
Quoted 63 lines
--- mm/vmalloc.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)mm/vmalloc.c +20
-17@@ -1078,31 +1078,34 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, retry:/* -* Preload this CPU with one extra vmap_area object to ensure -* that we have it available when fit type of free area is -* NE_FIT_TYPE. +* Preload this CPU with one extra vmap_area object. It is used +* when fit type of free area is NE_FIT_TYPE. Please note, it +* does not guarantee that an allocation occurs on a CPU that +* is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not. +* It can happen because of cpu migration, because there is a +* race until the below spinlock is taken. * * The preload is done in non-atomic context, thus it allows us * to use more permissive allocation masks to be more stable under -* low memory condition and high memory pressure. +* low memory condition and high memory pressure. In rare case, +* if not preloaded, GFP_NOWAIT is used. * -* Even if it fails we do not really care about that. Just proceed -* as it is. "overflow" path will refill the cache we allocate from. +* Set "pva" to NULL here, because of "retry" path. */ -preempt_disable (); -if (!__this_cpu_read (ne_fit_preload_node)) { -preempt_enable (); - pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node); -preempt_disable (); + pva =NULL ; -if (__this_cpu_cmpxchg (ne_fit_preload_node,NULL , pva)) { -if (pva) -kmem_cache_free (vmap_area_cachep, pva); - } - } +if (!this_cpu_read (ne_fit_preload_node)) +/* +* Even if it fails we do not really care about that. +* Just proceed as it is. If needed "overflow" path +* will refill the cache we allocate from. +*/ + pva =kmem_cache_alloc_node (vmap_area_cachep,GFP_KERNEL , node);spin_lock (&vmap_area_lock); -preempt_enable (); + +if (pva &&__this_cpu_cmpxchg (ne_fit_preload_node,NULL , pva)) +kmem_cache_free (vmap_area_cachep, pva);/* * If an allocation fails, the "vend" address is Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Uladzislau Rezki
maintainerHello, Michal.
Sorry for late reply. See my comments enclosed below:
Quoted 8 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
Quoted 2 lines
Some background. The preemption was disabled before to guarantee that a preloaded object is available for a CPU, it was stored for.
Probably good to be explicit that this has been achieved by combining the disabling the preemption and taking the spin lock while the
ne_fit_preload_nodeis checked resp. repopulated, right?
Right, agree with your comment!
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 10 lines
The aim was to not allocate in atomic context when spinlock is taken later, for regular vmap allocations. But that approach conflicts with
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RTphilosophy. It means that callingspin_lock()with disabled preemption is forbidden in theCONFIG_PREEMPT_RTkernel.Therefore, get rid of
preempt_disable()andpreempt_enable()when the preload is done for splitting purpose. As a result we do not guarantee now that a CPU is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not, with this change.
Quoted 6 lines
by populating the per cpu preload pointer under the
vmap_area_lock. This implies that at least each caller which has done the preallocation will not fallback to an atomic allocation later. It is possible that the preallocation would be pointless or that no preallocation is done because of the race but your data shows that this is really rare.
That makes sense to add. Please find below updated comment:
<snip>
mm/vmalloc: remove preempt_disable/enable when do preloading
Some background. The preemption was disabled before to guarantee that a preloaded object is available for a CPU, it was stored for. That was achieved by combining the disabling the preemption and taking the spin lock while the ne_fit_preload_node is checked.
The aim was to not allocate in atomic context when spinlock is taken later, for regular vmap allocations. But that approach conflicts with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT philosophy. It means that calling spin_lock() with disabled preemption is forbidden in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernel.
Therefore, get rid of preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() when the preload is done for splitting purpose. As a result we do not guarantee now that a CPU is preloaded, instead we minimize the case when it is not, with this change, by populating the per cpu preload pointer under the vmap_area_lock.
This implies that at least each caller that has done the preallocation will not fallback to an atomic allocation later. It is possible that the preallocation would be pointless or that no preallocation is done because of the race but the data shows that this is really rare.
For example i run the special test case that follows the preload pattern and path. 20 "unbind" threads run it and each does 1000000 allocations. Only 3.5 times among 1000000 a CPU was not preloaded. So it can happen but the number is negligible.
V2 - > V3:
- update the commit message
V1 -> V2:
- move __this_cpu_cmpxchg check when spin_lock is taken, as proposed by Andrew Morton
- add more explanation in regard of preloading
- adjust and move some comments
<snip>
Do you agree on that?
Thank you!
--
Vlad Rezki