From: paulmck@kernel.org
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] rcu/tree: Count number of batched kfree_rcu() locklessly
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:19:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200415171950.9424-3-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415171924.GA9270@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
We can relax the correctness of counting of number of queued objects in
favor of not hurting performance, by locklessly sampling per-cpu
counters. This should be Ok since under high memory pressure, it should not
matter if we are off by a few objects while counting. The shrinker will
still do the reclaim.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
[ paulmck: Remove unused "flags" variable. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 05dcbf8..aef587e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2939,7 +2939,7 @@ static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
krcp->head = NULL;
}
- krcp->count = 0;
+ WRITE_ONCE(krcp->count, 0);
/*
* One work is per one batch, so there are two "free channels",
@@ -3077,7 +3077,7 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
krcp->head = head;
}
- krcp->count++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(krcp->count, krcp->count + 1);
// Set timer to drain after KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES.
if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
@@ -3097,15 +3097,13 @@ static unsigned long
kfree_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
{
int cpu;
- unsigned long flags, count = 0;
+ unsigned long count = 0;
/* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
- spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
- count += krcp->count;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
+ count += READ_ONCE(krcp->count);
}
return count;
--
2.9.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-15 17:19 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] kfree_rcu() updates for v5.8 Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-15 17:19 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] rcuperf: Add ability to increase object allocation size paulmck
2020-04-15 17:19 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/4] rcu/tree: Add a shrinker to prevent OOM due to kfree_rcu() batching paulmck
2020-04-15 17:19 ` paulmck [this message]
2020-04-15 17:19 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] rcu: Add rcu_gp_might_be_stalled() paulmck
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=20200415171950.9424-3-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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