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
next prev parent 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