[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b96953b0-0ac5-477a-a2f0-c211dc17d5dc@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:34:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: urezki@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
qiang.zhang1211@...il.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rcu/kvfree: Prevents cache growing when the
backoff_page_cache_fill is set
On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 10:25:17PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> Currently, in kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(), the drain_page_cache() is
> executed before kfree_rcu_monitor() to drain page cache, if the bnode
> structure's->gp_snap has done, the kvfree_rcu_bulk() will fill the
> page cache again in kfree_rcu_monitor(), this commit add a check
> for krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill in put_cached_bnode(),
> if the krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill is set, prevent page
> cache growing and disable allocated page in fill_page_cache_func().
>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Much improved! But still some questions below...
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index cc34d13be181..9d9d3772cc45 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -2908,6 +2908,8 @@ static inline bool
> put_cached_bnode(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode)
> {
> + if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill))
> + return false;
This will mean that under low-memory conditions, we will keep zero
pages in ->bkvcache. All attempts to put something there will fail.
This is probably not an issue for structures containing an rcu_head
that are passed to kfree_rcu(p, field), but doesn't this mean that
kfree_rcu_mightsleep() unconditionally invokes synchronize_rcu()?
This could seriously slow up freeing under low-memory conditions,
which might exacerbate the low-memory conditions.
Is this really what we want? Zero cached rather than just fewer cached?
> // Check the limit.
> if (krcp->nr_bkv_objs >= rcu_min_cached_objs)
> return false;
> @@ -3221,7 +3223,7 @@ static void fill_page_cache_func(struct work_struct *work)
> int i;
>
> nr_pages = atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill) ?
> - 1 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
> + 0 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
>
> for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
I am still confused as to why we start "i" at zero rather than at
->nr_bkv_objs. What am I missing here?
> bnode = (struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *)
> --
> 2.32.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists