[PATCH rcu 14/16] rxrpc: Use call_rcu_hurry() instead of call_rcu()

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>

Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build
their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option.
This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order
to batch them.  This means that a given RCU grace period covers more
callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing
the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which
can be a very good thing.  This is not a subtle effect: In some important
use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%.

This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload
callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot
parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.

Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do
nothing but free memory.  If the system is short on memory, a shrinker
will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness,
thus freeing their memory in short order.  Similarly, the rcu_barrier()
function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked,
will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete
in a timely manner.

However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option.
For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until
the newly queued callback is invoked.  It would not be a good for
synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system.
Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of
call_rcu().  The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a
given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that
CPU.  After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks
might as well get full benefit from it.

Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a
call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and
feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach
to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places
where laziness is inappropriate.

And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
in rxrpc_kill_connection(), which sometimes does a wakeup
that should not be unduly delayed.

Therefore, make rxrpc_kill_connection() use call_rcu_hurry() in order
to revert to the old behavior.

[ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ]

Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-afs@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
 net/rxrpc/conn_object.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c
index 22089e37e97f0..9c5fae9ca106c 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ void rxrpc_kill_connection(struct rxrpc_connection *conn)
 	 * must carry a ref on the connection to prevent us getting here whilst
 	 * it is queued or running.
 	 */
-	call_rcu(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection);
+	call_rcu_hurry(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection);
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23