replace work queue synchronization with synchronize_rcu
cover replace work queue synchronization with synchronize_rcu
On systems that run FIFO:1 applications that busy loop on isolated CPUs, executing tasks on such CPUs under lower priority is undesired (since that will either hang the system, or cause longer interruption to the FIFO task due to execution of lower priority task with very small sched slices).
Commit d479960e44f27e0e52ba31b21740b703c538027c ("mm: disable LRU pagevec during the migration temporarily") relies on queueing work items on all online CPUs to ensure visibility of lru_disable_count.
However, its possible to use synchronize_rcu which will provide the same guarantees:
* synchronize_rcu() waits for preemption disabled
* and RCU read side critical sections
* For the users of lru_disable_count:
*
* preempt_disable, local_irq_disable() [bh_lru_lock()]
* rcu_read_lock [lru_pvecs CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
* preempt_disable [lru_pvecs !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
*
*
* so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by
* local_lock+rcu_read_lock or preemption disabled would be
* ordered by that.
Fixes:
[ 1873.243925] INFO: task kworker/u160:0:9 blocked for more than 622 seconds. [ 1873.243927] Tainted: G I --------- --- 5.14.0-31.rt21.31.el9.x86_64 #1 [ 1873.243929] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 1873.243929] task:kworker/u160:0 state:D stack: 0 pid: 9 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 [ 1873.243932] Workqueue: cpuset_migrate_mm cpuset_migrate_mm_workfn [ 1873.243936] Call Trace: [ 1873.243938] __schedule+0x21b/0x5b0 [ 1873.243941] schedule+0x43/0xe0 [ 1873.243943] schedule_timeout+0x14d/0x190 [ 1873.243946] ? resched_curr+0x20/0xe0 [ 1873.243953] ? __prepare_to_swait+0x4b/0x70 [ 1873.243958] wait_for_completion+0x84/0xe0 [ 1873.243962] __flush_work.isra.0+0x146/0x200 [ 1873.243966] ? flush_workqueue_prep_pwqs+0x130/0x130 [ 1873.243971] __lru_add_drain_all+0x158/0x1f0 [ 1873.243978] do_migrate_pages+0x3d/0x2d0 [ 1873.243985] ? pick_next_task_fair+0x39/0x3b0 [ 1873.243989] ? put_prev_task_fair+0x1e/0x30 [ 1873.243992] ? pick_next_task+0xb30/0xbd0 [ 1873.243995] ? __tick_nohz_task_switch+0x1e/0x70 [ 1873.244000] ? raw_spin_rq_unlock+0x18/0x60 [ 1873.244002] ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0xc1/0x2d0 [ 1873.244005] ? __switch_to+0x12f/0x510 [ 1873.244013] cpuset_migrate_mm_workfn+0x22/0x40 [ 1873.244016] process_one_work+0x1e0/0x410 [ 1873.244019] worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 [ 1873.244022] ? process_one_work+0x410/0x410 [ 1873.244024] kthread+0x173/0x190 [ 1873.244027] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 [ 1873.244031] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
diffstat:
swap.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
PATCH 1/2 mm: protect local lock sections with rcu_read_lock (on RT)
For the per-CPU LRU page vectors, augment the local lock protected code sections with rcu_read_lock.
This makes it possible to replace the queueing of work items on all CPUs by synchronize_rcu (which is necessary to run FIFO:1 applications uninterrupted on isolated CPUs).
mm/swap.c +64 -22
@@ -73,6 +73,48 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct lru_pvecs, .lock = INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(lock), }; +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT + +#define lru_local_lock (lock) \ + do { \ + rcu_read_lock(); \ + local_lock(lock); \ + } while (0) + +#define lru_local_unlock (lock) \ + do { \ + local_unlock(lock); \ + rcu_read_unlock(); \ + } while (0) + +#define lru_local_lock_irqsave (lock, flags) \ + do { \ + rcu_read_lock(); \ + local_lock_irqsave(lock, flags); \ + } while (0) + +#define lru_local_unlock_irqrestore (lock, flags) \ + do { \ + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags); \ + rcu_read_unlock(); \ + } while (0) + +#else + +#define lru_local_lock (lock) \ + local_lock(lock) + +#define lru_local_unlock (lock) \ + local_unlock(lock) + +#define lru_local_lock_irqsave (lock, flag) \ + local_lock_irqsave(lock, flags) + +#define lru_local_unlock_irqrestore (lock, flags) \ + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags) + +#endif +/* * This path almost never happens for VM activity - pages are normally * freed via pagevecs. But it gets used by networking.
@@ -255,11 +297,11 @@ void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folunsigned long flags;folio_get (folio); -local_lock_irqsave (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); +lru_local_lock_irqsave (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_rotate.pvec);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, &folio->page))pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, pagevec_move_tail_fn); -local_unlock_irqrestore (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); +lru_local_unlock_irqrestore (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); } }
@@ -351,11 +393,11 @@ static void folio_activate(struct foliostruct pagevec *pvec;folio_get (folio); -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.activate_page);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, &folio->page))pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, __activate_page); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); } }
@@ -382,7 +424,7 @@ static void __lru_cache_activate_folio(sstruct pagevec *pvec;int i; -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.lru_add);/*
@@ -404,7 +446,7 @@ static void __lru_cache_activate_folio(s } } -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); }/*
@@ -463,11 +505,11 @@ void folio_add_lru(struct folio *folio)VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO (folio_test_lru (folio), folio);folio_get (folio); -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.lru_add);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, &folio->page))__pagevec_lru_add (pvec); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); }EXPORT_SYMBOL (folio_add_lru);
@@ -618,9 +660,9 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu)unsigned long flags;/* No harm done if a racing interrupt already did this */ -local_lock_irqsave (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); +lru_local_lock_irqsave (&lru_rotate.lock, flags);pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, pagevec_move_tail_fn); -local_unlock_irqrestore (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); +lru_local_unlock_irqrestore (&lru_rotate.lock, flags); } pvec = &per_cpu (lru_pvecs.lru_deactivate_file, cpu);
@@ -658,12 +700,12 @@ void deactivate_file_page(struct page *pif (likely (get_page_unless_zero (page))) {struct pagevec *pvec; -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.lru_deactivate_file);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, page))pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, lru_deactivate_file_fn); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); } }
@@ -680,12 +722,12 @@ void deactivate_page(struct page *page)if (PageLRU (page) &&PageActive (page) && !PageUnevictable (page)) {struct pagevec *pvec; -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.lru_deactivate);get_page (page);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, page))pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, lru_deactivate_fn); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); } }
@@ -702,20 +744,20 @@ void mark_page_lazyfree(struct page *pag !PageSwapCache(page) && !PageUnevictable(page)) {struct pagevec *pvec; -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); pvec =this_cpu_ptr (&lru_pvecs.lru_lazyfree);get_page (page);if (pagevec_add_and_need_flush (pvec, page))pagevec_lru_move_fn (pvec, lru_lazyfree_fn); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); } }void lru_add_drain (void ) { -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock);lru_add_drain_cpu (smp_processor_id ()); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); }/*
@@ -726,18 +768,18 @@ void lru_add_drain(void)*/ static void lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain (void ) { -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock);lru_add_drain_cpu (smp_processor_id ()); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock);invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu (); }void lru_add_drain_cpu_zone (struct zone *zone) { -local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_lock (&lru_pvecs.lock);lru_add_drain_cpu (smp_processor_id ());drain_local_pages (zone); -local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); +lru_local_unlock (&lru_pvecs.lock); }#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
Re: [patch 1/2] mm: protect local lock sections with rcu_read_lock (on RT)
Quoted 6 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
For the per-CPU LRU page vectors, augment the local lock protected code sections with
rcu_read_lock.This makes it possible to replace the queueing of work items on all CPUs by
synchronize_rcu(which is necessary to run FIFO:1 applications uninterrupted on isolated CPUs).
I don't think this is needed. In RT local_locks use a spinlock. See kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:
"The RT [spinlock] substitutions explicitly disable migration and take rcu_read_lock() across the lock held section."
Regards,
Signature · 1 line
Nicolás Sáenz
Re: [patch 1/2] mm: protect local lock sections with rcu_read_lock (on RT)
Quoted 8 lines · Nicolas Saenz Julienne
Quoted 6 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
For the per-CPU LRU page vectors, augment the local lock protected code sections with
rcu_read_lock.This makes it possible to replace the queueing of work items on all CPUs by
synchronize_rcu(which is necessary to run FIFO:1 applications uninterrupted on isolated CPUs).
Quoted 5 lines
I don't think this is needed. In RT
local_locksuse a spinlock. Seekernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:"The RT [spinlock] substitutions explicitly disable migration and take
rcu_read_lock()across the lock held section."
Nice! Then the migrate_disable from __local_lock and friends seems unnecessary as well
#define __local_lock(__lock) \
do { \
migrate_disable(); \
spin_lock(this_cpu_ptr((__lock))); \
} while (0)Since:
static __always_inline void __rt_spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
rtlock_might_resched();
rtlock_lock(&lock->lock);
rcu_read_lock();
migrate_disable();
}Will resend -v2.
Re: [patch 1/2] mm: protect local lock sections with rcu_read_lock (on RT)
Quoted 15 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
Quoted 8 lines · Nicolas Saenz Julienne
Quoted 6 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
For the per-CPU LRU page vectors, augment the local lock protected code sections with
rcu_read_lock.This makes it possible to replace the queueing of work items on all CPUs by
synchronize_rcu(which is necessary to run FIFO:1 applications uninterrupted on isolated CPUs).Quoted 5 lines
I don't think this is needed. In RT
local_locksuse a spinlock. Seekernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:"The RT [spinlock] substitutions explicitly disable migration and take
rcu_read_lock()across the lock held section."
Quoted 9 lines
Nice! Then the
migrate_disablefrom__local_lockand friends seems unnecessary as well#define __local_lock(__lock) \ do { \ migrate_disable(); \ spin_lock(this_cpu_ptr((__lock))); \ } while (0)
It's needed as you might migrate between:
cpu1_lock = this_cpu_ptr(__lock); // migrate here to cpu2 spin_lock(cpu1_lock); // unprotected write into cpu2 lists
Regards,
Signature · 1 line
Nicolás Sáenz
PATCH 2/2 mm: lru_cache_disable: replace work queue synchronization with synchronize_rcu
In reply to Marcelo TosattiOn systems that run FIFO:1 applications that busy loop on isolated CPUs, executing tasks on such CPUs under lower priority is undesired (since that will either hang the system, or cause longer interruption to the FIFO task due to execution of lower priority task with very small sched slices).
Commit d479960e44f27e0e52ba31b21740b703c538027c ("mm: disable LRU pagevec during the migration temporarily") relies on queueing work items on all online CPUs to ensure visibility of lru_disable_count.
However, its possible to use synchronize_rcu which will provide the same guarantees:
* synchronize_rcu() waits for preemption disabled
* and RCU read side critical sections
* For the users of lru_disable_count:
*
* preempt_disable, local_irq_disable() [bh_lru_lock()]
* rcu_read_lock [lru_pvecs CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
* preempt_disable [lru_pvecs !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
*
*
* so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by
* local_lock+rcu_read_lock or preemption disabled would be
* ordered by that.
Fixes:
[ 1873.243925] INFO: task kworker/u160:0:9 blocked for more than 622 seconds. [ 1873.243927] Tainted: G I --------- --- 5.14.0-31.rt21.31.el9.x86_64 #1 [ 1873.243929] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 1873.243929] task:kworker/u160:0 state:D stack: 0 pid: 9 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 [ 1873.243932] Workqueue: cpuset_migrate_mm cpuset_migrate_mm_workfn [ 1873.243936] Call Trace: [ 1873.243938] __schedule+0x21b/0x5b0 [ 1873.243941] schedule+0x43/0xe0 [ 1873.243943] schedule_timeout+0x14d/0x190 [ 1873.243946] ? resched_curr+0x20/0xe0 [ 1873.243953] ? __prepare_to_swait+0x4b/0x70 [ 1873.243958] wait_for_completion+0x84/0xe0 [ 1873.243962] __flush_work.isra.0+0x146/0x200 [ 1873.243966] ? flush_workqueue_prep_pwqs+0x130/0x130 [ 1873.243971] __lru_add_drain_all+0x158/0x1f0 [ 1873.243978] do_migrate_pages+0x3d/0x2d0 [ 1873.243985] ? pick_next_task_fair+0x39/0x3b0 [ 1873.243989] ? put_prev_task_fair+0x1e/0x30 [ 1873.243992] ? pick_next_task+0xb30/0xbd0 [ 1873.243995] ? __tick_nohz_task_switch+0x1e/0x70 [ 1873.244000] ? raw_spin_rq_unlock+0x18/0x60 [ 1873.244002] ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0xc1/0x2d0 [ 1873.244005] ? __switch_to+0x12f/0x510 [ 1873.244013] cpuset_migrate_mm_workfn+0x22/0x40 [ 1873.244016] process_one_work+0x1e0/0x410 [ 1873.244019] worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 [ 1873.244022] ? process_one_work+0x410/0x410 [ 1873.244024] kthread+0x173/0x190 [ 1873.244027] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 [ 1873.244031] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
mm/swap.c +16 -8
@@ -873,8 +873,7 @@ inline void __lru_add_drain_all(bool forfor_each_online_cpu (cpu) {struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu (lru_add_drain_work, cpu); - if (force_all_cpus || - pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_pvecs.lru_add, cpu)) || + if (pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_pvecs.lru_add, cpu)) || data_race(pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_rotate.pvec, cpu))) || pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_pvecs.lru_deactivate_file, cpu)) || pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_pvecs.lru_deactivate, cpu)) ||
@@ -918,14 +917,23 @@ atomic_t lru_disable_count = ATOMIC_INITvoid lru_cache_disable (void ) {atomic_inc (&lru_disable_count); +synchronize_rcu ();#ifdef CONFIG_SMP /* -* lru_add_drain_all in the force mode will schedule draining on -* all online CPUs so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by -* local_lock or preemption disabled would be ordered by that. -* The atomic operation doesn't need to have stronger ordering -* requirements because that is enforced by the scheduling -* guarantees. +* synchronize_rcu() waits for preemption disabled +* and RCU read side critical sections +* For the users of lru_disable_count: +* +* preempt_disable, local_irq_disable() [bh_lru_lock()] +* rcu_read_lock [lru_pvecs CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT] +* preempt_disable [lru_pvecs !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT] +* +* +* so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by +* local_lock+rcu_read_lock or preemption disabled would be +* ordered by that. The atomic operation doesn't need to have +* stronger ordering requirements because that is enforced +* by the scheduling guarantees. */ __lru_add_drain_all (true);#else
Re: [patch 2/2] mm: lru_cache_disable: replace work queue synchronization with synchronize_rcu
Quoted 17 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
mm/swap.c +5
-6@@ -918,14 +917,23 @@ atomic_t lru_disable_count = ATOMIC_INITvoid lru_cache_disable (void ) {atomic_inc (&lru_disable_count); +synchronize_rcu ();#ifdef CONFIG_SMP /* -* lru_add_drain_all in the force mode will schedule draining on -* all online CPUs so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by -* local_lock or preemption disabled would be ordered by that. -* The atomic operation doesn't need to have stronger ordering -* requirements because that is enforced by the scheduling -* guarantees. +* synchronize_rcu() waits for preemption disabled +* and RCU read side critical sections +* For the users of lru_disable_count: +*
mm/swap.c atomic_t lru_disable_count = ATOMIC_INIT · line 936
Quoted 10 lines
mm/swap.c +10
-0+* preempt_disable, local_irq_disable() [bh_lru_lock()] +* rcu_read_lock [lru_pvecs CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT] +* preempt_disable [lru_pvecs !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT] +* +* +* so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by +* local_lock+rcu_read_lock or preemption disabled would be +* ordered by that. The atomic operation doesn't need to have +* stronger ordering requirements because that is enforced +* by the scheduling guarantees.
"The atomic operation doesn't need to have stronger ordering requirements because that is enforced by the scheduling guarantees."
This is no longer needed.
Regards,
Signature · 1 line
Nicolás Sáenz