From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: david@redhat.com, patches@lists.linux.dev,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
petr.pavlu@suse.com, prarit@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
rafael@kernel.org, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, song@kernel.org,
rppt@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
mhocko@suse.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
colin.i.king@gmail.com, jim.cromie@gmail.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, jbaron@akamai.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] modules/kmod: replace implementation with a sempahore
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 10:19:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230407171929.xlxi7ewxxtrqo6z5@offworld> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230405203505.1343562-3-mcgrof@kernel.org>
In the title: s/sempahore/semaphore
On Wed, 05 Apr 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>Simplfy the concurrency delimiter we user for kmod with the semaphore.
>I had used the kmod strategy to try to implement a similar concurrency
>delimiter for the kernel_read*() calls from the finit_module() path
>so to reduce vmalloc() memory pressure. That effort didn't provid yet
>conclusive results, but one thing that did became clear is we can use
>the suggested alternative solution with semaphores which Linus hinted
>at instead of using the atomic / wait strategy.
>
>I've stress tested this with kmod test 0008:
>
>time /data/linux-next/tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh -t 0008
>
>And I get only a *slight* delay. That delay however is small, a few
>seconds for a full test loop run that runs 150 times, for about ~30-40
>seconds. The small delay is worth the simplfication IMHO.
Yes, code looks a lot nicer.
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
>Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>---
> kernel/module/kmod.c | 26 +++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/kernel/module/kmod.c b/kernel/module/kmod.c
>index b717134ebe17..925eb85b8346 100644
>--- a/kernel/module/kmod.c
>+++ b/kernel/module/kmod.c
>@@ -40,8 +40,7 @@
> * effect. Systems like these are very unlikely if modules are enabled.
> */
> #define MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT 50
>-static atomic_t kmod_concurrent_max = ATOMIC_INIT(MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT);
>-static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(kmod_wq);
>+static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(kmod_concurrent_max, MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT);
>
> /*
> * This is a restriction on having *all* MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT threads
>@@ -148,29 +147,18 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
>- if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) < 0) {
>- pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: kmod_concurrent_max (%u) close to 0 (max_modprobes: %u), for module %s, throttling...",
>- atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent_max),
>- MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT, module_name);
>- ret = wait_event_killable_timeout(kmod_wq,
>- atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) >= 0,
>- MAX_KMOD_ALL_BUSY_TIMEOUT * HZ);
>- if (!ret) {
>- pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: modprobe %s cannot be processed, kmod busy with %d threads for more than %d seconds now",
>- module_name, MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT, MAX_KMOD_ALL_BUSY_TIMEOUT);
>- return -ETIME;
>- } else if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS) {
>- pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: sigkill sent for modprobe %s, giving up", module_name);
>- return ret;
>- }
>+ ret = down_timeout(&kmod_concurrent_max, MAX_KMOD_ALL_BUSY_TIMEOUT);
>+ if (ret) {
>+ pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: modprobe %s cannot be processed, kmod busy with %d threads for more than %d seconds now",
>+ module_name, MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT, MAX_KMOD_ALL_BUSY_TIMEOUT);
>+ return ret;
> }
>
> trace_module_request(module_name, wait, _RET_IP_);
>
> ret = call_modprobe(module_name, wait ? UMH_WAIT_PROC : UMH_WAIT_EXEC);
>
>- atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent_max);
>- wake_up(&kmod_wq);
>+ up(&kmod_concurrent_max);
>
> return ret;
> }
>--
>2.39.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-07 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-05 20:35 [PATCH v2 0/2] kmod: simplify with a semaphore Luis Chamberlain
2023-04-05 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] Change DEFINE_SEMAPHORE() to take a number argument Luis Chamberlain
2023-04-07 16:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2023-04-07 20:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-04-07 20:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-04-12 4:05 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-04-08 8:22 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2023-04-05 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] modules/kmod: replace implementation with a sempahore Luis Chamberlain
2023-04-07 17:19 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2023-04-11 8:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-04-13 9:44 ` Miroslav Benes
2023-04-13 16:38 ` Luis Chamberlain
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=20230407171929.xlxi7ewxxtrqo6z5@offworld \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=colin.i.king@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jim.cromie@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.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