Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:44:01 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
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 Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 04:35:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:26:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:24:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:20:37AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 08:38:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:42:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:52:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > [snip] 
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -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.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yeah, well, call_rcu() this early came as a surprise to me back in the
> > > > > > > > day, so...  ;-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I actually did get surprised as well!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It appears the timers are not fully initialized so the really early
> > > > > > > kfree_rcu() call from rcu_init() does cause a splat about an initialized
> > > > > > > timer spinlock (even though future kfree_rcu()s and the system are working
> > > > > > > fine all the way into the torture tests).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think to resolve this, we can just not do batching until early_initcall,
> > > > > > > during which I have an initialization function which switches batching on.
> > > > > > > >From that point it is safe.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just go ahead and batch, but don't bother with the timer until
> > > > > > after single-threaded boot is done.  For example, you could check
> > > > > > rcu_scheduler_active similar to how sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() does.
> > > > > > (See kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cool, that works nicely and I tested it. Actually I made it such that we
> > > > > don't need to batch even, before the scheduler is up. I don't see any benefit
> > > > > of that unless we can see a kfree_rcu() flood happening that early at boot
> > > > > which seems highly doubtful as a real world case.
> > > > 
> > > > The benefit is removing the kfree_rcu() special cases from the innards
> > > > of RCU, for example, in rcu_do_batch().  Another benefit is removing the
> > > > current restriction on the position of the rcu_head structure within the
> > > > enclosing data structure.
> > > > 
> > > > So it would be good to avoid the current kfree_rcu() special casing within
> > > > RCU itself.
> > > > 
> > > > Or are you using some trick that avoids both the batching and the current
> > > > kfree_rcu() special casing?
> > > 
> > > Oh. I see what you mean. Would it be Ok with you to have that be a follow up
> > > patch?  I am not getting rid (yet) of the special casing in rcu_do_batch in
> > > this patch, but can do that in another patch.
> > 
> > I am OK having that in another patch, and I will be looking over yours
> > and Byungchul's two patches tomorrow.  If they look OK, I will queue them.
> 
> Ok, some of the code comments are stale as Byungchul pointed, allow me to fix
> them and then you can look at v3 directly, to save you the time.

Works for me, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> > However, I won't send them upstream without a follow-on patch that gets
> > rid of the kfree_rcu() special casing within rcu_do_batch() and perhaps
> > elsewhere.  This follow-on patch would of course also need to change rcuperf
> > appropriately.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> > > For now I am just doing something like the following in kfree_call_rcu(). I
> > > was almost about to hit send on the v1 and I have been testing this a lot so
> > > I'll post it anyway; and we can discuss more about this point on that.
> > > 
> > > +void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > +{
> > > +       unsigned long flags;
> > > +       struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> > > +       bool monitor_todo;
> > > +
> > > +       /* kfree_call_rcu() batching requires timers to be up. If the scheduler
> > > +        * is not yet up, just skip batching and do non-batched kfree_call_rcu().
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING)
> > > +               return kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(head, func);
> > > +
> > 
> > As a stopgap until the follow-on patch, this looks fine.
> 
> Cool, thanks!
> 
> - Joel
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists