From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com (mail-it0-f70.google.com [209.85.214.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1096F6B0038 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:20:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id b11so3165654itj.0 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com. [141.146.126.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v124si1935517ith.4.2017.12.19.13.20.45 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfree_rcu() should use the new kfree_bulk() interface for freeing rcu structures References: <1513705948-31072-1-git-send-email-rao.shoaib@oracle.com> <20171219214158.353032f0@redhat.com> From: Rao Shoaib Message-ID: <75f514a6-8121-7d5f-4b6a-7e68d8f226a8@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171219214158.353032f0@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org On 12/19/2017 12:41 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:52:27 -0800 rao.shoaib@oracle.com wrote: > >> +/* Main RCU function that is called to free RCU structures */ >> +static void >> +__rcu_bulk_free(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, int cpu, bool lazy) >> +{ >> + unsigned long offset; >> + void *ptr; >> + struct rcu_bulk_free *rbf; >> + struct rcu_bulk_free_container *rbfc = NULL; >> + >> + rbf = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_rbf); >> + >> + if (unlikely(!rbf->rbf_init)) { >> + spin_lock_init(&rbf->rbf_lock); >> + rbf->rbf_cpu = smp_processor_id(); >> + rbf->rbf_init = true; >> + } >> + >> + /* hold lock to protect against other cpu's */ >> + spin_lock_bh(&rbf->rbf_lock); > I'm not sure this will be faster. Having to take a cross CPU lock here > (+ BH-disable) could cause scaling issues. Hopefully this lock will > not be used intensively by other CPUs, right? > > > The current cost of __call_rcu() is a local_irq_save/restore (which is > quite expensive, but doesn't cause cross CPU chatter). > > Later in __rcu_process_callbacks() we have a local_irq_save/restore for > the entire list, plus a per object cost doing local_bh_disable/enable. > And for each object we call __rcu_reclaim(), which in some cases > directly call kfree(). As Paul has pointed out the lock is a per-cpu lock, the only reason for another CPU to access this lock is if the rcu callbacks run on a different CPU and there is nothing the code can do to avoid that but that should be rare anyways. > > > If I had to implement this: I would choose to do the optimization in > __rcu_process_callbacks() create small on-call-stack ptr-array for > kfree_bulk(). I would only optimize the case that call kfree() > directly. In the while(list) loop I would defer calling > __rcu_reclaim() for __is_kfree_rcu_offset(head->func), and instead add > them to the ptr-array (and flush if the array is full in loop, and > kfree_bulk flush after loop). This is exactly what the current code is doing. It accumulates only the calls made to __kfree_rcu(head, offset) ==> kfree_call_rcu() ==> __bulk_free_rcu __kfree_rcu has a check to make sure that an offset is being passed. When a function pointer is passed the caller has to call call_rcu/call_rcu_sched Accumulating early avoids the individual cost of calling __call_rcu Perhaps I do not understand your point. Shoaib > > The real advantage of kfree_bulk() comes from amortizing the per kfree > (behind-the-scenes) sync cost. There is an additional benefit, because > objects comes from RCU and will hit a slower path in SLUB. The SLUB > allocator is very fast for objects that gets recycled quickly (short > lifetime), non-locked (cpu-local) double-cmpxchg. But slower for > longer-lived/more-outstanding objects, as this hits a slower code-path, > fully locked (cross-cpu) double-cmpxchg. > >> + >> + rbfc = rbf->rbf_container; >> + >> + if (rbfc == NULL) { >> + if (rbf->rbf_cached_container == NULL) { >> + rbf->rbf_container = >> + kmalloc(sizeof(struct rcu_bulk_free_container), >> + GFP_ATOMIC); >> + rbf->rbf_container->rbfc_rbf = rbf; >> + } else { >> + rbf->rbf_container = rbf->rbf_cached_container; >> + rbf->rbf_container->rbfc_rbf = rbf; >> + cmpxchg(&rbf->rbf_cached_container, >> + rbf->rbf_cached_container, NULL); >> + } >> + >> + if (unlikely(rbf->rbf_container == NULL)) { >> + >> + /* Memory allocation failed maintain a list */ >> + >> + head->func = (void *)func; >> + head->next = rbf->rbf_list_head; >> + rbf->rbf_list_head = head; >> + rbf->rbf_list_size++; >> + if (rbf->rbf_list_size == RCU_MAX_ACCUMULATE_SIZE) >> + __rcu_bulk_schedule_list(rbf); >> + >> + goto done; >> + } >> + >> + rbfc = rbf->rbf_container; >> + rbfc->rbfc_entries = 0; >> + >> + if (rbf->rbf_list_head != NULL) >> + __rcu_bulk_schedule_list(rbf); >> + } >> + >> + offset = (unsigned long)func; >> + ptr = (void *)head - offset; >> + >> + rbfc->rbfc_data[rbfc->rbfc_entries++] = ptr; >> + if (rbfc->rbfc_entries == RCU_MAX_ACCUMULATE_SIZE) { >> + >> + WRITE_ONCE(rbf->rbf_container, NULL); >> + spin_unlock_bh(&rbf->rbf_lock); >> + call_rcu(&rbfc->rbfc_rcu, __rcu_bulk_free_impl); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> +done: >> + if (!rbf->rbf_monitor) { >> + >> + call_rcu(&rbf->rbf_rcu, __rcu_bulk_free_monitor); >> + rbf->rbf_monitor = true; >> + } >> + >> + spin_unlock_bh(&rbf->rbf_lock); >> +} > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org