Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/kfree: Do not request RCU when not needed

From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Nov 17 2022 - 08:06:31 EST




> On Nov 17, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:05:46PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:19 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello, Paul, Joel.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes sure, I am doing a run now with my patch. However, I have a
>>>>> question -- why do you feel blocking in the kworker is not an issue?
>>>>> You are taking a snapshot before queuing the normal kwork and then
>>>>> reading the snapshot when the normal kwork runs. Considering it is a
>>>>> high priority queue, the delay between when you are taking the
>>>>> snapshot, and reading it is likely small so there is a bigger chance
>>>>> of blocking in cond_synchronize_rcu(). Did I miss something?
>>>>>
>>>> We can wait indeed in the reclaim worker. But the worker does not do any
>>>> nasty or extra work here. If there is a need we block and wait. After a
>>>> grace period, we are awoken and proceed.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore i do not see the reason in handling two cases:
>>>>
>>>> if (gp_done)
>>>> queue_work();
>>>> else
>>>> queue_rcu_work();
>>>>
>>>> it is the same if we just queue the work and check on entry. The current
>>>> scenario is: queue the work after a grace period. This is the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Right if the reclaimer was a high prio kthread a time would be shorter.
>>>>
>>>> In your scenario the time seems even shorter(i have not checked) because
>>>> you update a snapshot of krcp each time a kvfree_rcu() is invoked. So
>>>> basically even though you have objects whose grace period is passed you
>>>> do not separate it anyhow. Because you update the:
>>>>
>>>> krcp->gp_snap = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
>>>>
>>>> too often.
>>>>
>>> Once upon a time we discussed that it is worth to keep track of GP
>>> per-a-page in order to reduce a memory footprint. Below patch addresses
>>> it:
>>
>> In the patch below, it appears you are tracking the GP per krwp, and
>> not per page. But I could be missing something - could you split it
>> into separate patches for easier review?
>>
> I will split. I was thinking about it. The GP is tracked per-a-page. As for
> krwp it is only for channel_3. Everything goes there if no-page or no cache.
>
Ah, ok.

>>
>> Also it still does cond_synchronize_rcu() :-(
>>
> Sometimes we need to wait for a GP we can not just release :)

You know that is not what I meant ;) I was concerned about the blocking.

Thanks,

- Joel

>
> --
> Uladzislau Rezki