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: <Yh9gpg2bgnXGGt5s@alley>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:18:46 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] mm: page_alloc: replace mm_percpu_wq with kthreads in
 drain_all_pages

On Tue 2022-03-01 13:12:19, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 4:25 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Thanks for the review, Petr. One question inline.

Answering just this question.

> > > 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
> > > +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.
> 
> Should I add a comment here to describe why we don't need
> cpus_read_lock here (due to init process not being active at this
> time)?

I would add the comment. That said, I hope that I am right and
lock is not really needed ;-)

Best Regards,
Petr