| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190828204521.GU26530@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:45:21 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, byungchul.park@....com,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/tree: Add multiple in-flight batches of kfree_rcu
work
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:09:52AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> During testing, it was observed that amount of memory consumed due
> kfree_rcu() batching is 300-400MB. Previously we had only a single
> head_free pointer pointing to the list of rcu_head(s) that are to be
> freed after a grace period. Until this list is drained, we cannot queue
> any more objects on it since such objects may not be ready to be
> reclaimed when the worker thread eventually gets to drainin g the
> head_free list.
>
> We can do better by maintaining multiple lists as done by this patch.
> Testing shows that memory consumption came down by around 100-150MB with
> just adding another list. Adding more than 1 additional list did not
> show any improvement.
Nice! A few comments below. Please address them and post a full v3.
(I am off the next two days, and I guarantee you that upon return I will
mix and match the wrong patches otherwise!)
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 4f7c3096d786..5bf8f7e793ea 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -2688,28 +2688,37 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
>
> /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining a batch. */
> #define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (HZ / 50)
> +#define KFREE_N_BATCHES 2
> +
> +struct kfree_rcu_work {
> + /* The rcu_work node for queuing work with queue_rcu_work(). The work
> + * is done after a grace period.
> + */
> + struct rcu_work rcu_work;
> +
> + /* The list of objects that have now left ->head and are queued for
> + * freeing after a grace period.
> + */
> + struct rcu_head *head_free;
> +
> + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> +};
>
> /*
> * Maximum number of kfree(s) to batch, if this limit is hit then the batch of
> * kfree(s) is queued for freeing after a grace period, right away.
> */
> struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
> - /* The rcu_work node for queuing work with queue_rcu_work(). The work
> - * is done after a grace period.
> - */
> - struct rcu_work rcu_work;
>
> /* The list of objects being queued in a batch but are not yet
> * scheduled to be freed.
> */
> struct rcu_head *head;
>
> - /* The list of objects that have now left ->head and are queued for
> - * freeing after a grace period.
> - */
> - struct rcu_head *head_free;
> + /* Pointer to the per-cpu array of kfree_rcu_work structures */
> + struct kfree_rcu_work krw_arr[KFREE_N_BATCHES];
>
> - /* Protect concurrent access to this structure. */
> + /* Protect concurrent access to this structure and kfree_rcu_work. */
> spinlock_t lock;
>
> /* The delayed work that flushes ->head to ->head_free incase ->head
> @@ -2730,12 +2739,14 @@ static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct rcu_head *head, *next;
> - struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = container_of(to_rcu_work(work),
> - struct kfree_rcu_cpu, rcu_work);
> + struct kfree_rcu_work *krwp = container_of(to_rcu_work(work),
> + struct kfree_rcu_work, rcu_work);
> + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> +
> + krcp = krwp->krcp;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
> - head = krcp->head_free;
> - krcp->head_free = NULL;
> + head = xchg(&krwp->head_free, NULL);
Given that we hold the lock, why the xchg()? Alternatively, why not
just acquire the lock in the other places you use xchg()? This is a
per-CPU lock, so contention should not be a problem, should it?
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
>
> /*
> @@ -2758,19 +2769,28 @@ static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> */
> static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> {
> + int i = 0;
> + struct kfree_rcu_work *krwp = NULL;
> +
> lockdep_assert_held(&krcp->lock);
> + while (i < KFREE_N_BATCHES) {
> + if (!krcp->krw_arr[i].head_free) {
> + krwp = &(krcp->krw_arr[i]);
> + break;
> + }
> + i++;
> + }
>
> - /* If a previous RCU batch work is already in progress, we cannot queue
> + /* If both RCU batches are already in progress, we cannot queue
> * another one, just refuse the optimization and it will be retried
> * again in KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES time.
> */
If you are going to remove the traditional first "/*" line of a comment,
why not go all the way and cut the last one as well? "//".
> - if (krcp->head_free)
> + if (!krwp)
> return false;
>
> - krcp->head_free = krcp->head;
> - krcp->head = NULL;
> - INIT_RCU_WORK(&krcp->rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work);
> - queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krcp->rcu_work);
> + krwp->head_free = xchg(&krcp->head, NULL);
This isn't anywhere near a fastpath, so just acquiring the lock is a
better choice here.
> + INIT_RCU_WORK(&krwp->rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work);
> + queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
>
> return true;
> }
> @@ -3736,8 +3756,11 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
> + int i = KFREE_N_BATCHES;
>
> spin_lock_init(&krcp->lock);
> + while (i--)
> + krcp->krw_arr[i].krcp = krcp;
This was indeed a nice trick back in the PDP-11 days of 64-kilobyte
address spaces, so thank you for the nostalgia! However, a straight-up
"for" loop is less vulnerable to code being added between the declaration
of "i" and the "while" loop.
> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->monitor_work, kfree_rcu_monitor);
> }
> }
> --
> 2.23.0.187.g17f5b7556c-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists