All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: qiang.zhang@windriver.com
Cc: urezki@gmail.com, paulmck@kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] kvfree_rcu: Release page cache under memory pressure
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:45:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210212154503.GA55693@pc638.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210211121012.278203-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com>

> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> 
> Add free per-cpu existing krcp's page cache operation in shrink callback
> function, and also during shrink period, simple delay schedule fill page
> work, to avoid refill page while free krcp page cache.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> Co-developed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> ---
>  v1->v4:
>  During the test a page shrinker is pretty active, because of low memory
>  condition. callback drains it whereas kvfree_rcu() part refill it right
>  away making kind of vicious circle.
>  Through Vlad Rezki suggestion, to avoid this, schedule a periodic delayed
>  work with HZ, and it's easy to do that.
>  v4->v5:
>  change commit message and use xchg replace WRITE_ONCE()
> 
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index c1ae1e52f638..f1fba23f5036 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3139,7 +3139,7 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
>  	bool initialized;
>  	int count;
>  
> -	struct work_struct page_cache_work;
> +	struct delayed_work page_cache_work;
>  	atomic_t work_in_progress;
>  	struct hrtimer hrtimer;
>  
> @@ -3395,7 +3395,7 @@ schedule_page_work_fn(struct hrtimer *t)
>  	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp =
>  		container_of(t, struct kfree_rcu_cpu, hrtimer);
>  
> -	queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &krcp->page_cache_work);
> +	queue_delayed_work(system_highpri_wq, &krcp->page_cache_work, 0);
>  	return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
>  }
>  
> @@ -3404,7 +3404,7 @@ static void fill_page_cache_func(struct work_struct *work)
>  	struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode;
>  	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp =
>  		container_of(work, struct kfree_rcu_cpu,
> -			page_cache_work);
> +			page_cache_work.work);
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	bool pushed;
>  	int i;
> @@ -3428,15 +3428,21 @@ static void fill_page_cache_func(struct work_struct *work)
>  	atomic_set(&krcp->work_in_progress, 0);
>  }
>  
> +static atomic_t backoff_page_cache_fill = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> +
Should we initialize a static atomic_t? It is zero by default.

>  static void
>  run_page_cache_worker(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
>  {
>  	if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
>  			!atomic_xchg(&krcp->work_in_progress, 1)) {
> -		hrtimer_init(&krcp->hrtimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
> -			HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> -		krcp->hrtimer.function = schedule_page_work_fn;
> -		hrtimer_start(&krcp->hrtimer, 0, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> +		if (atomic_xchg(&backoff_page_cache_fill, 0)) {
> +			queue_delayed_work(system_highpri_wq, &krcp->page_cache_work, HZ);
system_wq? It is not so critical, anyway the job is rearmed with 1 second interval.

> +		} else {
> +			hrtimer_init(&krcp->hrtimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
> +				HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> +			krcp->hrtimer.function = schedule_page_work_fn;
> +			hrtimer_start(&krcp->hrtimer, 0, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> +		}
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -3571,19 +3577,44 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvfree_call_rcu);
>  
> +static int free_krc_page_cache(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct llist_node *page_list, *pos, *n;
> +	int freed = 0;
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
> +	page_list = llist_del_all(&krcp->bkvcache);
> +	krcp->nr_bkv_objs = 0;
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
> +
> +	llist_for_each_safe(pos, n, page_list) {
> +		free_page((unsigned long)pos);
> +		freed++;
> +	}
> +
> +	return freed;
> +}
> +
>  static unsigned long
>  kfree_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
>  	unsigned long count = 0;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	/* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
>  
>  		count += READ_ONCE(krcp->count);
> +
> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
> +		count += krcp->nr_bkv_objs;
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
>  	}
>  
> +	atomic_set(&backoff_page_cache_fill, 1);
>  	return count;
>  }
>  
> @@ -3598,6 +3629,8 @@ kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
>  
>  		count = krcp->count;
> +		count += free_krc_page_cache(krcp);
> +
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
>  		if (krcp->monitor_todo)
>  			kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(krcp, flags);
> @@ -4574,7 +4607,7 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
>  		}
>  
>  		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->monitor_work, kfree_rcu_monitor);
> -		INIT_WORK(&krcp->page_cache_work, fill_page_cache_func);
> +		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->page_cache_work, fill_page_cache_func);
>  		krcp->initialized = true;
>  	}
>  	if (register_shrinker(&kfree_rcu_shrinker))
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
I have reviewed and tested that patch. Even though it can not be applied
cleanly on the latest Paul "dev" branch feel free to use:

Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>

Also i placed some small nits, because it should be rebased on latest dev.
As for commit message i guess Paul will help :)

Thank you!

--
Vlad Rezki

      reply	other threads:[~2021-02-12 15:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-11 12:10 [PATCH v5] kvfree_rcu: Release page cache under memory pressure qiang.zhang
2021-02-12 15:45 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]

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=20210212154503.GA55693@pc638.lan \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=qiang.zhang@windriver.com \
    --cc=rcu@vger.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.