rcu/tree: use more permissive parameters when attaching a head
Subsystems (4)
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH 1/3 rcu/tree: use more permissive parameters when attaching a head
It is documneted that a headless object can be reclaimed from might_sleep() context only. Because of that when a head is dynamically attached it makes sense to drop the lock and do an allocation with much more permissve flags comparing if it is done from atomic context.
That is why use GFP_KERNEL flag plus some extra ones which would make an allocation most likely to be succeed. The big advantage of doing so is a direct reclaim process.
Tested such approach on my local tiny system with 145MB of ram(the minimum amount the KVM system is capable of booting) and 4xCPUs. For stressing the rcuperf module was used. During tests with difference combinations i did not observe any hit of our last emergency case, when synchronize_rcu() is involved.
Please note, the "dynamically attaching" path was enabled only, apart of that all types of objects were considered as headless variant during testing.
--- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
kernel/rcu/tree.c +16 -7
@@ -3148,13 +3148,10 @@ static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj) {unsigned long *ptr; +/* Try hard to get the memory. */ ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN); - -if (!ptr) - ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN); - +sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_KERNEL | + __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL);if (!ptr)return NULL ;
@@ -3222,9 +3219,20 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)if (!success) {/* Is headless object? */ if (head ==NULL ) { +/* Drop the lock. */ +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); +local_irq_restore (flags); + head =attach_rcu_head_to_object (ptr);if (head ==NULL ) - goto unlock_return; + goto inline_return; + +/* Take it back. */ +local_irq_save (flags); + krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_lock (&krcp->lock);/* * Tag the headless object. Such objects have a back-pointer
@@ -3263,6 +3271,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)spin_unlock (&krcp->lock);local_irq_restore (flags); +inline_return:/* * High memory pressure, so inline kvfree() after * synchronize_rcu(). We can do it from might_sleep()
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH 2/3 rcu/tree: move locking/unlocking to separate functions
Introduce two helpers to lock and unlock an access to the per-cpu "kfree_rcu_cpu" structure. The reason is to make kvfree_call_rcu() function to be more readable.
--- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
kernel/rcu/tree.c +25 -14
@@ -3159,6 +3159,27 @@ static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj)return ((struct rcu_head *) ++ptr); } +static inline struct kfree_rcu_cpu * +krc_this_cpu_lock (unsigned long *flags) +{ +struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp; + +local_irq_save (*flags);// For safely calling this_cpu_ptr(). + krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); +if (likely (krcp->initialized)) +spin_lock (&krcp->lock); + +return krcp; +} + +static inline void +krc_this_cpu_unlock (struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,unsigned long flags) +{ +if (likely (krcp->initialized)) +spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); +local_irq_restore (flags); +} +/* * Queue a request for lazy invocation of appropriate free routine after a * grace period. Please note there are three paths are maintained, two are the
@@ -3195,10 +3216,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) ptr = (unsigned long *) func; } -local_irq_save (flags);// For safely calling this_cpu_ptr(). - krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); -if (krcp->initialized) -spin_lock (&krcp->lock); + krcp =krc_this_cpu_lock (&flags);// Queue the object but don't yet schedule the batch. if (debug_rcu_head_queue (ptr)) {
@@ -3220,19 +3238,14 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)/* Is headless object? */ if (head ==NULL ) {/* Drop the lock. */ -if (krcp->initialized) -spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); -local_irq_restore (flags); +krc_this_cpu_unlock (krcp, flags); head =attach_rcu_head_to_object (ptr);if (head ==NULL ) goto inline_return;/* Take it back. */ -local_irq_save (flags); - krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); -if (krcp->initialized) -spin_lock (&krcp->lock); + krcp =krc_this_cpu_lock (&flags);/* * Tag the headless object. Such objects have a back-pointer
@@ -3267,9 +3280,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) } unlock_return: -if (krcp->initialized) -spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); -local_irq_restore (flags); +krc_this_cpu_unlock (krcp, flags); inline_return:/*
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
maintainerPATCH 3/3 lib/test_vmalloc.c: introduce two new test cases
In reply to Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)Introduce two more test cases which are specific for RCU freeing of vmalloc pointer. One test case is for object that has rcu_head inside and second one is for headless testing.
--- lib/test_vmalloc.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
lib/test_vmalloc.c +48 -0
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@#include <linux/delay.h> #include <linux/rwsem.h> #include <linux/mm.h> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h> #define __param (type, name, init, msg) \ static type name = init; \
@@ -43,6 +44,8 @@ __param(int, run_test_mask, INT_MAX,"\t\tid: 32, name: random_size_align_alloc_test\n" "\t\tid: 64, name: align_shift_alloc_test\n" "\t\tid: 128, name: pcpu_alloc_test\n" +"\t\tid: 256, name: kvfree_rcu_with_head_test\n" +"\t\tid: 512, name: kvfree_rcu_head_less_test\n" /* Add a new test case description here. */ );
@@ -328,6 +331,49 @@ pcpu_alloc_test(void)return rv; } +struct test_kvfree_rcu { +struct rcu_head rcu; +unsigned char array[100 ]; +}; + +static int +kvfree_rcu_with_head_test (void ) +{ +struct test_kvfree_rcu *p; +int i; + +for (i =0 ; i < test_loop_count; i++) { + p =vmalloc (1 *PAGE_SIZE ); + +if (!p) +return -1 ; + + p->array[0 ] ='a' ; +kvfree_rcu (p, rcu); + } + +return 0 ; +} + +static int +kvfree_rcu_head_less_test (void ) +{ +struct test_kvfree_rcu *p; +int i; + +for (i =0 ; i < test_loop_count; i++) { + p =vmalloc (1 *PAGE_SIZE ); + +if (!p) +return -1 ; + + p->array[0 ] ='a' ; +kvfree_rcu (p); + } + +return 0 ; +} +struct test_case_desc {const char *test_name;int (*test_func)(void );
@@ -342,6 +388,8 @@ static struct test_case_desc test_case_array[] = { { "random_size_align_alloc_test", random_size_align_alloc_test }, { "align_shift_alloc_test", align_shift_alloc_test }, { "pcpu_alloc_test", pcpu_alloc_test }, + { "kvfree_rcu_with_head_test", kvfree_rcu_with_head_test }, + { "kvfree_rcu_head_less_test", kvfree_rcu_head_less_test }, /* Add a new test case here. */ };
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Quoted 16 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
It is documneted that a headless object can be reclaimed from
might_sleep()context only. Because of that when a head is dynamically attached it makes sense to drop the lock and do an allocation with much more permissve flags comparing if it is done from atomic context.That is why use
GFP_KERNELflag plus some extra ones which would make an allocation most likely to be succeed. The big advantage of doing so is a direct reclaim process.Tested such approach on my local tiny system with 145MB of ram(the minimum amount the KVM system is capable of booting) and 4xCPUs. For stressing the rcuperf module was used. During tests with difference combinations i did not observe any hit of our last emergency case, when
synchronize_rcu()is involved.
Quoted 6 lines
Please note, the "dynamically attaching" path was enabled only, apart of that all types of objects were considered as headless variant during testing.
Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>Suggested-by Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
Beautifully done, thanks Vlad! I agree with this and the other 2 changes and I applied it to my rcu/kfree branch for further testing by both of us.
thanks,
- Joel
Quoted 58 lines
--- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)kernel/rcu/tree.c +16
-7@@ -3148,13 +3148,10 @@ static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj) {unsigned long *ptr; +/* Try hard to get the memory. */ ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN); - -if (!ptr) - ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN); - +sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_KERNEL | + __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL);if (!ptr)return NULL ;@@ -3222,9 +3219,20 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)if (!success) {/* Is headless object? */ if (head ==NULL ) { +/* Drop the lock. */ +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); +local_irq_restore (flags); + head =attach_rcu_head_to_object (ptr);if (head ==NULL ) - goto unlock_return; + goto inline_return; + +/* Take it back. */ +local_irq_save (flags); + krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_lock (&krcp->lock);/* * Tag the headless object. Such objects have a back-pointer @@ -3263,6 +3271,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)spin_unlock (&krcp->lock);local_irq_restore (flags); +inline_return:/* * High memory pressure, so inline kvfree() after * synchronize_rcu(). We can do it from might_sleep() Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Quoted 34 lines · Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
It is documneted that a headless object can be reclaimed from
might_sleep()context only. Because of that when a head is dynamically attached it makes sense to drop the lock and do an allocation with much more permissve flags comparing if it is done from atomic context.That is why use
GFP_KERNELflag plus some extra ones which would make an allocation most likely to be succeed. The big advantage of doing so is a direct reclaim process.Tested such approach on my local tiny system with 145MB of ram(the minimum amount the KVM system is capable of booting) and 4xCPUs. For stressing the rcuperf module was used. During tests with difference combinations i did not observe any hit of our last emergency case, when
synchronize_rcu()is involved.Please note, the "dynamically attaching" path was enabled only, apart of that all types of objects were considered as headless variant during testing.
Signed-off-by Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>Suggested-by Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>--- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)kernel/rcu/tree.c +0
-0@@ -3148,13 +3148,10 @@ static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj) {unsigned long *ptr;
kernel/rcu/tree.c static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj) · line 3154
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/rcu/tree.c +3
-6+/* Try hard to get the memory. */ ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN); - -if (!ptr) - ptr =kmalloc (sizeof (unsigned long *) + -sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN); - +sizeof (struct rcu_head ),GFP_KERNEL | + __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL);
On thing here though, you removed the NOWARN. Was there a reason? It would now warn even when synchronously waiting right? I will fixup your commit to add it back for now but let me know if you had some other reason to remove it.
thanks,
- Joel
Quoted 36 lines
kernel/rcu/tree.c +13
-1if (!ptr)return NULL ;@@ -3222,9 +3219,20 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)if (!success) {/* Is headless object? */ if (head ==NULL ) { +/* Drop the lock. */ +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_unlock (&krcp->lock); +local_irq_restore (flags); + head =attach_rcu_head_to_object (ptr);if (head ==NULL ) - goto unlock_return; + goto inline_return; + +/* Take it back. */ +local_irq_save (flags); + krcp =this_cpu_ptr (&krc); +if (krcp->initialized) +spin_lock (&krcp->lock);/* * Tag the headless object. Such objects have a back-pointer @@ -3263,6 +3271,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)spin_unlock (&krcp->lock);local_irq_restore (flags); +inline_return:/* * High memory pressure, so inline kvfree() after * synchronize_rcu(). We can do it from might_sleep() Signature · 1 line
2.20.1