From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E38C76191 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D2D02084C for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="MqD/qfgZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9D2D02084C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:Reply-To:List-Subscribe:List-Help: List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Message-Id:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:References:Subject:To:From:Date:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=aiOH1UuGoz3qUcraC9LlO9+xRA0KXzW3wmyHxtrH4Qc=; b=MqD/qfgZmEmr2D seuLQkfmPKzyD1exSKcmtnsIk5s89b0GUTCjQ/nf7xcoyX2oRtjhkcDuYIxfsbXgjHC34WPSP3d2M 56/pyqTkHIv1pMhCgZ3e36+3Rqnme5F/c+FOl4OMCMiWykKNbBsJ5NlelAoKzgV3Wbs0YaNZBjXuI asuFrJUH8KCZl0ipguFeS76D9E3WsjblJqFBeofcat/wSB/2EGccfzOOTdTh4MDozbZjQJYMx5V9f S9ytdCpdzSgP3vOx0vR4cJp/oaL5vuqRX/TyRQbIDcXh0zP9TMjjlEpGMajlzmzvCH5LzplWdKbA5 7ZYuIfYelp+xYUnoFR5Q==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hpHVy-000270-Ay; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:58 +0000 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hpHVu-0001zG-U7 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6LJR8Aj042826 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:28:52 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tvwv8rjrq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:28:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 20:28:50 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.23) by e12.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.199) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sun, 21 Jul 2019 20:28:42 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x6LJSfuk38863276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:41 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C33FB2064; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A158B205F; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.189.166]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:28:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7E68716C2E3A; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:28:41 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop) References: <0000000000008dd6bb058e006938@google.com> <000000000000964b0d058e1a0483@google.com> <20190721044615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190721081933-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190721131725.GR14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190721134614-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190721134614-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19072119-0060-0000-0000-00000363A912 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011470; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000287; SDB=6.01235486; UDB=6.00651094; IPR=6.01016824; MB=3.00027831; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-07-21 19:28:48 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19072119-0061-0000-0000-00004A3D2E25 Message-Id: <20190721192841.GT14271@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-21_13:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907210226 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190721_122854_980831_3EB056ED X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 43.84 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com Cc: mhocko@suse.com, peterz@infradead.org, jasowang@redhat.com, ldv@altlinux.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, namit@vmware.com, mingo@kernel.org, elena.reshetova@intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, hch@infradead.org, christian@brauner.io, keescook@chromium.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, jglisse@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, wad@chromium.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:53:23PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:17:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 08:28:05AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Hi Paul, others, > > > > > > So it seems that vhost needs to call kfree_rcu from an ioctl. My worry > > > is what happens if userspace starts cycling through lots of these > > > ioctls. Given we actually use rcu as an optimization, we could just > > > disable the optimization temporarily - but the question would be how to > > > detect an excessive rate without working too hard :) . > > > > > > I guess we could define as excessive any rate where callback is > > > outstanding at the time when new structure is allocated. I have very > > > little understanding of rcu internals - so I wanted to check that the > > > following more or less implements this heuristic before I spend time > > > actually testing it. > > > > > > Could others pls take a look and let me know? > > > > These look good as a way of seeing if there are any outstanding callbacks, > > but in the case of Tree RCU, call_rcu_outstanding() would almost never > > return false on a busy system. > > Hmm, ok. Maybe I could rename this to e.g. call_rcu_busy > and change the tree one to do rcu_segcblist_n_lazy_cbs > 1000? Or the function could simply return the number of callbacks queued on the current CPU, and let the caller decide how many is too many. > > Here are some alternatives: > > > > o RCU uses some pieces of Rao Shoaib kfree_rcu() patches. > > The idea is to make kfree_rcu() locally buffer requests into > > batches of (say) 1,000, but processing smaller batches when RCU > > is idle, or when some smallish amout of time has passed with > > no more kfree_rcu() request from that CPU. RCU than takes in > > the batch using not call_rcu(), but rather queue_rcu_work(). > > The resulting batch of kfree() calls would therefore execute in > > workqueue context rather than in softirq context, which should > > be much easier on the system. > > > > In theory, this would allow people to use kfree_rcu() without > > worrying quite so much about overload. It would also not be > > that hard to implement. > > > > o Subsystems vulnerable to user-induced kfree_rcu() flooding use > > call_rcu() instead of kfree_rcu(). Keep a count of the number > > of things waiting for a grace period, and when this gets too > > large, disable the optimization. It will then drain down, at > > which point the optimization can be re-enabled. > > > > But please note that callbacks are -not- guaranteed to run on > > the CPU that queued them. So yes, you would need a per-CPU > > counter, but you would need to periodically sum it up to check > > against the global state. Or keep track of the CPU that > > did the call_rcu() so that you can atomically decrement in > > the callback the same counter that was atomically incremented > > just before the call_rcu(). Or any number of other approaches. > > I'm really looking for something we can do this merge window > and without adding too much code, and kfree_rcu is intended to > fix a bug. > Adding call_rcu and careful accounting is something that I'm not > happy adding with merge window already open. OK, then I suggest having the interface return you the number of callbacks. That allows you to experiment with the cutoff. Give or take the ioctl overhead... > > Also, the overhead is important. For example, as far as I know, > > current RCU gracefully handles close(open(...)) in a tight userspace > > loop. But there might be trouble due to tight userspace loops around > > lighter-weight operations. > > > > So an important question is "Just how fast is your ioctl?" If it takes > > (say) 100 microseconds to execute, there should be absolutely no problem. > > On the other hand, if it can execute in 50 nanoseconds, this very likely > > does need serious attention. > > > > Other thoughts? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > Hmm the answer to this would be I'm not sure. > It's setup time stuff we never tested it. Is it possible to measure it easily? Thanx, Paul > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c > > > index 477b4eb44af5..067909521d72 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c > > > @@ -125,6 +125,25 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu); > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Helpful for rate-limiting kfree_rcu/call_rcu callbacks. > > > + */ > > > +bool call_rcu_outstanding(void) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + struct rcu_data *rdp; > > > + bool outstanding; > > > + > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > + outstanding = rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist); > > > + outstanding = rcu_ctrlblk.donetail != rcu_ctrlblk.curtail; > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > + > > > + return outstanding; > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_outstanding); > > > + > > > /* > > > * Post an RCU callback to be invoked after the end of an RCU grace > > > * period. But since we have but one CPU, that would be after any > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > index a14e5fbbea46..d4b9d61e637d 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > @@ -2482,6 +2482,24 @@ static void rcu_leak_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp) > > > { > > > } > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Helpful for rate-limiting kfree_rcu/call_rcu callbacks. > > > + */ > > > +bool call_rcu_outstanding(void) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + struct rcu_data *rdp; > > > + bool outstanding; > > > + > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > + outstanding = rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist); > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > + > > > + return outstanding; > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_outstanding); > > > + > > > /* > > > * Helper function for call_rcu() and friends. The cpu argument will > > > * normally be -1, indicating "currently running CPU". It may specify > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel