Message-ID: <20190807094504.GB169551@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Aug 2019 05:45:04 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>,
        max.byungchul.park@...il.com, byungchul.park@....com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, kernel-team@....com,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu
 batching

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:56:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:20:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Recently a discussion about performance of system involving a high rate
> > of kfree_rcu() calls surfaced on the list [1] which led to another
> > discussion how to prepare for this situation.
> > 
> > This patch adds basic batching support for kfree_rcu. It is "basic"
> > because we do none of the slab management, dynamic allocation, code
> > moving or any of the other things, some of which previous attempts did
> > [2]. These fancier improvements can be follow-up patches and there are
> > several ideas being experimented in those regards.
> > 
> > Torture tests follow in the next patch and show improvements of around
> > ~13% with continuous flooding of kfree_rcu() calls on a 16 CPU system.
> > 
> > [1] http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190723035725-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org
> > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/824
> > 
> > This is an effort just to start simple, and build up from there.
> > 
> > Cc: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
> > Cc: max.byungchul.park@...il.com
> > Cc: byungchul.park@....com
> > Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com
> > Cc: kernel-team@....com
> > Co-developed-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> 
> Looks like a great start!  Some comments and questions interspersed.
> There are a number of fixes required for this to be ready for mainline,
> but that is to be expected for v1.

Sure, thanks. Replied below:

> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 193 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index a14e5fbbea46..bdbd483606ce 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2593,19 +2593,194 @@ void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> >  
> > +
> > +/* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining batch */
> > +#define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES 50
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Maximum number of kfree(s) to batch, if limit is hit
> > + * then RCU work is queued right away
> > + */
> > +#define KFREE_MAX_BATCH	200000ULL
> > +
> > +struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
> > +	/* The work done to free objects after GP */
> > +	struct rcu_work rcu_work;
> 
> If I didn't already know what a struct rcu_work was, the comment would
> completely confuse me.  The key point is that an rcu_work structure
> is to queue_kfree_rcu_work() as rcu_head is to call_rcu().

Will add comment.

> All the header comments need to be complete sentences as well, including
> the period at the end of the sentence.
> confusing, but all the more reason to make it easier on people reading
> your code.  ;-)

Sure, will fix.

> > +	/* The list of objects being queued */
> > +	struct rcu_head *head;
> 
> So these are the ones that have been queued, but are not yet waiting
> for a grace period, correct?

Yes, will improve comment.

> > +	int kfree_batch_len;
> 
> This length applies only to the callbacks in ->head, and not to those
> in ->head_free, yes?

Yes, will improve comment.

> > +	/* The list of objects pending a free */
> > +	struct rcu_head *head_free;
> 
> And these are the ones waiting for a grace period, right?

Yes, will improve comment.

> > +	/* Protect concurrent access to this structure */
> > +	spinlock_t lock;
> > +
> > +	/* The work done to monitor whether objects need free */
> > +	struct delayed_work monitor_work;
> 
> This would be the callbacks in ->head, not those in ->head_free, right?

This is just the delayed_work for making sure that kfree eventually happens.
At this point there can be callbacks queued in ->head, and also possibly
->head_free if the previous batch limit was reached.

> > +	bool monitor_todo;
> > +};
> 
> Either way, the comments need a bit of work.

Sure, will do.

> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kfree_rcu_cpu, krc);
> > +
> > +/* Free all heads after a grace period (worker function) */
> 
> Perhaps something like "This function is invoked in workqueue context
> after a grace period.  It frees all the objects queued on ->head_free."
> 
> The current "Frees all heads" is asking for confusion between ->head
> and ->head_free.

Sure, will fix, I agree.

> > +static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct rcu_head *head, *next;
> > +	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krc = container_of(to_rcu_work(work),
> > +					struct kfree_rcu_cpu, rcu_work);
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +	head = krc->head_free;
> > +	krc->head_free = NULL;
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	/* The head must be detached and not referenced from anywhere */
> > +	for (; head; head = next) {
> > +		next = head->next;
> > +		head->next = NULL;
> > +		/* Could be possible to optimize with kfree_bulk in future */
> > +		__rcu_reclaim(rcu_state.name, head);
> 
> We need at least a cond_resched() here.  If earlier experience of
> a series of kfree() calls taking two milliseconds each holds up, a
> cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() would also be necessary.
> 
> The two-milliseconds experience was with more than one hundred CPUs
> concurrently doing kfree(), in case you were wondering why you hadn't
> seen this in single-threaded operation.

I see. Ok, I will add cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs().

> Of course, I am hoping that a later patch uses an array of pointers built
> at kfree_rcu() time, similar to Rao's patch (with or without kfree_bulk)
> in order to reduce per-object cache-miss overhead.  This would make it
> easier for callback invocation to keep up with multi-CPU kfree_rcu()
> floods.

I think Byungchul tried an experiment with array of pointers and wasn't
immediately able to see a benefit. Perhaps his patch needs a bit more polish
or another test-case needed to show benefit due to cache-misses, and the perf
tool could be used to show if cache misses were reduced. For this initial
pass, we decided to keep it without the array optimization.

Would you or Rao have any suggestions for a test-case that can show benefit
with array-of-pointers?

> > + * Schedule the kfree batch RCU work to run after GP.
> 
> Better!  Still, please add the workqueue part, so that it is something
> like "Schedule the kfree batch RCU work to run in workqueue context
> after a GP."

Ok, will be more specific.

> > + *
> > + * Either the batch reached its maximum size, or the monitor's
> > + * time reached, either way schedule the batch work.
> 
> Perhaps something like "This function is invoked when the batch
> has reached size KFREE_MAX_BATCH or when kfree_rcu_monitor() sees
> that the KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES timeout has been reached."

Ok, will fix.

> > +static bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krc)
> 
> "krcp" would be more consistent with other RCU pointer naming.  It would
> also avoid the "this_" prefix below, whose purpose appears to be to
> avoid confusion between the "krc" per-CPU variable and the "krc" pointer
> currently in use.

Sure, makes sense, will do!

> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&krc->lock);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Someone already drained, probably before the monitor's worker
> > +	 * thread ran. Just return to avoid useless work.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!krc->head)
> > +		return true;
> 
> Given that we held the lock across the earlier enqueue of a callback
> onto ->head, how can ->head be NULL here?  What am I missing?

This was added for the following events:
1. kfree_rcu_batch() runs a few times due to which a few kfree_rcu requests
are queued.

2. kfree_rcu_batch() also schedules the monitor thread which eventually
results in kfree_rcu_monitor() being called in the future.

3. Now a a large number of kfree_rcu() requests come in, and we are forced to
do the 'draining' earlier than usual. We do so, and head becomes NULL.

4. kfree_rcu_monitor() gets called now due to step 2. which calls
free_rcu_drain_unlock() which calls queue_kfree_rcu_work(). Here we see that
the 'draining' from step 3 already happened, so there's nothing to do.

Actually, since step 3 is already setting monitor_todo to false now, I think
this test is redundant and I can just remove it. Thanks for pointing this
out.

> > +	 * If RCU batch work already in progress, we cannot
> > +	 * queue another one, just refuse the optimization.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (krc->head_free)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	krc->head_free = krc->head;
> > +	krc->head = NULL;
> > +	krc->kfree_batch_len = 0;
> > +	INIT_RCU_WORK(&krc->rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work);
> > +	queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krc->rcu_work);
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krc,
> > +				   unsigned long flags)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcu_head *head, *next;
> > +
> > +	/* It is time to do bulk reclaim after grace period */
> > +	krc->monitor_todo = false;
> > +	if (queue_kfree_rcu_work(krc)) {
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Use non-batch regular call_rcu for kfree_rcu in case things are too
> > +	 * busy and batching of kfree_rcu could not be used.
> > +	 */
> > +	head = krc->head;
> > +	krc->head = NULL;
> > +	krc->kfree_batch_len = 0;
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	for (; head; head = next) {
> > +		next = head->next;
> > +		head->next = NULL;
> > +		__call_rcu(head, head->func, -1, 1);
> 
> We need at least a cond_resched() here.  200,000 times through this loop
> in a PREEMPT=n kernel might not always be pretty.  Except that this is
> invoked directly from kfree_rcu() which might be invoked with interrupts
> disabled, which precludes calls to cond_resched().  So the realtime guys
> are not going to be at all happy with this loop.

Ok, will add this here.

> And this loop could be avoided entirely by having a third rcu_head list
> in the kfree_rcu_cpu structure.  Yes, some of the batches would exceed
> KFREE_MAX_BATCH, but given that they are invoked from a workqueue, that
> should be OK, or at least more OK than queuing 200,000 callbacks with
> interrupts disabled.  (If it turns out not to be OK, an array of rcu_head
> pointers can be used to reduce the probability of oversized batches.)
> This would also mean that the equality comparisons with KFREE_MAX_BATCH
> need to become greater-or-equal comparisons or some such.

Yes, certainly we can do these kinds of improvements after this patch, and
then add more tests to validate the improvements.

> > + * If enough time has passed, the kfree batch has to be drained
> > + * and the monitor takes care of that.
> 
> Perhaps something like: "This function is invoked after the
> KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES timeout has elapse, so it drains the specified
> kfree_rcu_cpu structure's ->head list."

Ok, sure.

> > + */
> > +static void kfree_rcu_monitor(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +	bool todo;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krc = container_of(work, struct kfree_rcu_cpu,
> > +						 monitor_work.work);
> > +
> > +	/* It is time to do bulk reclaim after grace period */
> 
> Except that we really aren't doing kfree_bulk() yet because we are on
> the wrong side of the grace period, which means that we are not going
> to kfree() anything yet.  The actual kfree()ing happens after the grace
> period.  (Yes, I see the other interpretation, but it would be good to
> make it unambiguous.)

Right, I will improve the comment.

> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +	todo = krc->monitor_todo;
> > +	krc->monitor_todo = false;
> > +	if (todo)
> > +		kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(krc, flags);
> > +	else
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krc->lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kfree_rcu_batch(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *this_krc;
> > +	bool monitor_todo;
> > +
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > +	this_krc = this_cpu_ptr(&krc);
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&this_krc->lock);
> > +
> > +	/* Queue the kfree but don't yet schedule the batch */
> > +	head->func = func;
> > +	head->next = this_krc->head;
> > +	this_krc->head = head;
> > +	this_krc->kfree_batch_len++;
> > +
> > +	if (this_krc->kfree_batch_len == KFREE_MAX_BATCH) {
> > +		kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(this_krc, flags);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Maximum has not been reached, schedule monitor for timely drain */
> > +	monitor_todo = this_krc->monitor_todo;
> > +	this_krc->monitor_todo = true;
> > +	spin_unlock(&this_krc->lock);
> > +
> > +	if (!monitor_todo) {
> > +		schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(),
> > +				&this_krc->monitor_work,  KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES);
> > +	}
> > +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Queue an RCU callback for lazy invocation after a grace period.
> 
> This should be expanded a bit.  Workqueue context and all that.

Ok, sure, will be more clear.

> > - * This will likely be later named something like "call_rcu_lazy()",
> > - * but this change will require some way of tagging the lazy RCU
> > - * callbacks in the list of pending callbacks. Until then, this
> > - * function may only be called from __kfree_rcu().
> >   */
> >  void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >  {
> > -	__call_rcu(head, func, -1, 1);
> > +	kfree_rcu_batch(head, func);
> 
> Can't we just put the contents of kfree_rcu_batch() here and avoid the
> extra level of function call?

Sure ok, that makes sense, we can do that.

> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu);
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * The version of kfree_call_rcu that does not do batching of kfree_rcu()
> > + * requests. To be used only for performance testing comparisons with
> > + * kfree_rcu_batch().
> > + */
> > +void kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > +{
> > +	__call_rcu(head, func, -1, 1);
> > +}
> 
> You need an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu_nobatch) here to allow
> rcuperf to be used via modprobe/rmmod.  Normally 0day test robot would
> have complained about this.

Ok, will fix.

> >  /*
> >   * During early boot, any blocking grace-period wait automatically
> >   * implies a grace period.  Later on, this is never the case for PREEMPT.
> > @@ -3452,6 +3627,17 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(void)
> >  	pr_cont("\n");
> >  }
> >  
> > +void kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
> > +
> > +		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->monitor_work, kfree_rcu_monitor);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> >  struct workqueue_struct *rcu_gp_wq;
> >  struct workqueue_struct *rcu_par_gp_wq;
> >  
> > @@ -3459,6 +3645,8 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
> >  {
> >  	int cpu;
> >  
> > +	kfree_rcu_batch_init();
> 
> What happens if someone does a kfree_rcu() before this point?  It looks
> like it should work, but have you tested it?
> 
> >  	rcu_early_boot_tests();
> 
> For example, by testing it in rcu_early_boot_tests() and moving the
> call to kfree_rcu_batch_init() here.

I have not tried to do the kfree_rcu() this early. I will try it out.

thanks!

 - Joel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists