linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/1] mm: page_alloc: replace mm_percpu_wq with kthreads in drain_all

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220301122520.GB23924@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 13:25:20 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, guro@...com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, timmurray@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] mm: page_alloc: replace mm_percpu_wq with kthreads in
 drain_all_pages

On Thu 2022-02-24 17:28:19, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Sending as an RFC to confirm if this is the right direction and to
> clarify if other tasks currently executed on mm_percpu_wq should be
> also moved to kthreads. The patch seems stable in testing but I want
> to collect more performance data before submitting a non-RFC version.
> 
> 
> Currently drain_all_pages uses mm_percpu_wq to drain pages from pcp
> list during direct reclaim. The tasks on a workqueue can be delayed
> by other tasks in the workqueues using the same per-cpu worker pool.
> This results in sizable delays in drain_all_pages when cpus are highly
> contended.
> Memory management operations designed to relieve memory pressure should
> not be allowed to block by other tasks, especially if the task in direct
> reclaim has higher priority than the blocking tasks.
> Replace the usage of mm_percpu_wq with per-cpu low priority FIFO
> kthreads to execute draining tasks.
> 
> Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>

The patch looks good to me. See few comments below about things
where I was in doubts. But I do not see any real problem with
this approach.

> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3589febc6d31..c9ab2cf4b05b 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2209,6 +2210,58 @@ _deferred_grow_zone(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order)
>  
>  #endif /* CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT */
>  
> +static void drain_local_pages_func(struct kthread_work *work);
> +
> +static int alloc_drain_worker(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct pcpu_drain *drain;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> +	drain = per_cpu_ptr(&pcpu_drain, cpu);
> +	drain->worker = kthread_create_worker_on_cpu(cpu, 0, "pg_drain/%u", cpu);
> +	if (IS_ERR(drain->worker)) {
> +		drain->worker = NULL;
> +		pr_err("Failed to create pg_drain/%u\n", cpu);
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	/* Ensure the thread is not blocked by normal priority tasks */
> +	sched_set_fifo_low(drain->worker->task);
> +	kthread_init_work(&drain->work, drain_local_pages_func);
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int free_drain_worker(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct pcpu_drain *drain;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> +	drain = per_cpu_ptr(&pcpu_drain, cpu);
> +	kthread_cancel_work_sync(&drain->work);

I do see not how CPU down was handled in the original code.

Note that workqueues call unbind_workers() when a CPU
is going down. The pending work items might be proceed
on another CPU. From this POV, the new code looks more
safe.

> +	kthread_destroy_worker(drain->worker);
> +	drain->worker = NULL;
> +	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void __init init_drain_workers(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned int cpu;
> +
> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> +		alloc_drain_worker(cpu);

I though whether this need to be called under cpus_read_lock();
And I think that the code should be safe as it is. There
is this call chain:

  + kernel_init_freeable()
    + page_alloc_init_late()
      + init_drain_workers()

It is called after smp_init() but before the init process
is executed. I guess that nobody could trigger CPU hotplug
at this state. So there there is no need to synchronize
against it.

> +
> +	if (cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
> +					"page_alloc/drain:online",
> +					alloc_drain_worker,
> +					free_drain_worker)) {
> +		pr_err("page_alloc_drain: Failed to allocate a hotplug state\n");

I am not sure if there are any special requirements about the
ordering vs. other CPU hotplug operations.

Just note that the per-CPU workqueues are started/stopped
via CPUHP_AP_WORKQUEUE_ONLINE. They are available slightly
earlier before CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN when the CPU is being
enabled.

> +	}
> +}
> +
>  void __init page_alloc_init_late(void)
>  {
>  	struct zone *zone;

Best Regards,
Petr