public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	paulmck@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/kfree: Do not request RCU when not needed
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:58:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3YwDuKibmOiz6/7@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YTVmGnC_aBNQ49OfNiD+CX1VX0-R6c_3mNZNvvAoAw0hA@mail.gmail.com>

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@gmail.com> 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.

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

--
Uladzislau Rezki

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-17 12:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-09  2:47 [PATCH v2] rcu/kfree: Do not request RCU when not needed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-11-10 13:05 ` Uladzislau Rezki
     [not found]   ` <CAEXW_YSq89xzgyQ9Tdt1tCqz8VAfzb7kSXVZmnxDuJ65U0UZ3w@mail.gmail.com>
2022-11-10 14:01     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-11  1:56       ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-14 12:20         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-14 16:17           ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-11-14 20:54             ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-14 21:26               ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-11-15 12:05             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-14 20:49           ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-15 13:07             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-16 19:19               ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-16 22:05                 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-17 12:58                   ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2022-11-17 13:06                     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-17 13:11                       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-11-17 13:23                         ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-17 13:43                           ` Uladzislau Rezki
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-11-04 14:21 Joel Fernandes (Google)

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=Y3YwDuKibmOiz6/7@pc636 \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox