From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
memxor@gmail.com, delyank@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 09/15] bpf: Batch call_rcu callbacks instead of SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU.
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 09:15:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220901161547.57722-10-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220901161547.57722-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU makes kmem_caches non mergeable and slows down
kmem_cache_destroy. All bpf_mem_cache are safe to share across different maps
and programs. Convert SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU to batched call_rcu. This change
solves the memory consumption issue, avoids kmem_cache_destroy latency and
keeps bpf hash map performance the same.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/memalloc.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++-
2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
index 7e5df6866d92..2d553f91e8ab 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
@@ -101,6 +101,11 @@ struct bpf_mem_cache {
/* count of objects in free_llist */
int free_cnt;
int low_watermark, high_watermark, batch;
+
+ struct rcu_head rcu;
+ struct llist_head free_by_rcu;
+ struct llist_head waiting_for_gp;
+ atomic_t call_rcu_in_progress;
};
struct bpf_mem_caches {
@@ -194,6 +199,45 @@ static void free_one(struct bpf_mem_cache *c, void *obj)
kfree(obj);
}
+static void __free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
+{
+ struct bpf_mem_cache *c = container_of(head, struct bpf_mem_cache, rcu);
+ struct llist_node *llnode = llist_del_all(&c->waiting_for_gp);
+ struct llist_node *pos, *t;
+
+ llist_for_each_safe(pos, t, llnode)
+ free_one(c, pos);
+ atomic_set(&c->call_rcu_in_progress, 0);
+}
+
+static void enque_to_free(struct bpf_mem_cache *c, void *obj)
+{
+ struct llist_node *llnode = obj;
+
+ /* bpf_mem_cache is a per-cpu object. Freeing happens in irq_work.
+ * Nothing races to add to free_by_rcu list.
+ */
+ __llist_add(llnode, &c->free_by_rcu);
+}
+
+static void do_call_rcu(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
+{
+ struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
+
+ if (atomic_xchg(&c->call_rcu_in_progress, 1))
+ return;
+
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!llist_empty(&c->waiting_for_gp));
+ llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, __llist_del_all(&c->free_by_rcu))
+ /* There is no concurrent __llist_add(waiting_for_gp) access.
+ * It doesn't race with llist_del_all either.
+ * But there could be two concurrent llist_del_all(waiting_for_gp):
+ * from __free_rcu() and from drain_mem_cache().
+ */
+ __llist_add(llnode, &c->waiting_for_gp);
+ call_rcu(&c->rcu, __free_rcu);
+}
+
static void free_bulk(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
{
struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
@@ -212,12 +256,13 @@ static void free_bulk(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
local_dec(&c->active);
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
local_irq_restore(flags);
- free_one(c, llnode);
+ enque_to_free(c, llnode);
} while (cnt > (c->high_watermark + c->low_watermark) / 2);
/* and drain free_llist_extra */
llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, llist_del_all(&c->free_llist_extra))
- free_one(c, llnode);
+ enque_to_free(c, llnode);
+ do_call_rcu(c);
}
static void bpf_mem_refill(struct irq_work *work)
@@ -303,7 +348,7 @@ int bpf_mem_alloc_init(struct bpf_mem_alloc *ma, int size)
return -ENOMEM;
size += LLIST_NODE_SZ; /* room for llist_node */
snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "bpf-%u", size);
- kmem_cache = kmem_cache_create(buf, size, 8, SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, NULL);
+ kmem_cache = kmem_cache_create(buf, size, 8, 0, NULL);
if (!kmem_cache) {
free_percpu(pc);
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -345,6 +390,15 @@ static void drain_mem_cache(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
{
struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
+ /* The caller has done rcu_barrier() and no progs are using this
+ * bpf_mem_cache, but htab_map_free() called bpf_mem_cache_free() for
+ * all remaining elements and they can be in free_by_rcu or in
+ * waiting_for_gp lists, so drain those lists now.
+ */
+ llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, __llist_del_all(&c->free_by_rcu))
+ free_one(c, llnode);
+ llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, llist_del_all(&c->waiting_for_gp))
+ free_one(c, llnode);
llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, llist_del_all(&c->free_llist))
free_one(c, llnode);
llist_for_each_safe(llnode, t, llist_del_all(&c->free_llist_extra))
@@ -366,6 +420,10 @@ void bpf_mem_alloc_destroy(struct bpf_mem_alloc *ma)
kmem_cache_destroy(c->kmem_cache);
if (c->objcg)
obj_cgroup_put(c->objcg);
+ /* c->waiting_for_gp list was drained, but __free_rcu might
+ * still execute. Wait for it now before we free 'c'.
+ */
+ rcu_barrier();
free_percpu(ma->cache);
ma->cache = NULL;
}
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 4e9d4622aef7..074c901fbb4e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -638,7 +638,10 @@ static void __bpf_map_put(struct bpf_map *map, bool do_idr_lock)
bpf_map_free_id(map, do_idr_lock);
btf_put(map->btf);
INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred);
- schedule_work(&map->work);
+ /* Avoid spawning kworkers, since they all might contend
+ * for the same mutex like slab_mutex.
+ */
+ queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &map->work);
}
}
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-01 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-01 16:15 [PATCH v5 bpf-next 00/15] bpf: BPF specific memory allocator Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 01/15] bpf: Introduce any context " Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 02/15] bpf: Convert hash map to bpf_mem_alloc Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 03/15] selftests/bpf: Improve test coverage of test_maps Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 04/15] samples/bpf: Reduce syscall overhead in map_perf_test Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 05/15] bpf: Relax the requirement to use preallocated hash maps in tracing progs Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 06/15] bpf: Optimize element count in non-preallocated hash map Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 07/15] bpf: Optimize call_rcu " Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 08/15] bpf: Adjust low/high watermarks in bpf_mem_cache Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 10/15] bpf: Add percpu allocation support to bpf_mem_alloc Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/15] bpf: Convert percpu hash map to per-cpu bpf_mem_alloc Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 12/15] bpf: Remove tracing program restriction on map types Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 13/15] bpf: Prepare bpf_mem_alloc to be used by sleepable bpf programs Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 14/15] bpf: Remove prealloc-only restriction for " Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-01 16:15 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 15/15] bpf: Remove usage of kmem_cache from bpf_mem_cache Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220901161547.57722-10-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=delyank@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox