From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB7C62904; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740585102; cv=none; b=TgvWW17cYPZJKZVytXBXKtPhHaLREZHOmXg2wAf4UgSK569yeXK1ulwZ93sR8uAiZTB6nK5IX3PYbCOqmxobN9pJl7ohaKJjTMIUs7aq2OtU1TygpcMhfOXIm2ZzDQEBZdOkvkaeBgSM+FmIykBruwoNtSqFTKzVyNmPV8VRJjM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740585102; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dystgmSF/TCO8+uxX80prLd9mmlEKMg2wmXGUfrA378=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cD2PbHZ1dbmstvKL3M3eDvyPylXut+c9LD9vVUhGNX+COSxQM9QaYSNRiGdl3v9wHMttOJkYK3emTLPhDBVyMzBz8xwBI8LsicxHy1u8HZ+flnHlIk0PlcWOaig6Ybes1+VmyaY0jOicBwnbv/v9y6hcDIHhIKmIF3bWPGccFKw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J/wtZVHD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="J/wtZVHD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B506C4CED6; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:51:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1740585101; bh=dystgmSF/TCO8+uxX80prLd9mmlEKMg2wmXGUfrA378=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=J/wtZVHDOkcHb7Wj/XoTGhFH+jxWlVoY/3JmSc85XIsQBGuD3Gxmv325CJ64iW62I sLn3ueeKUKKEkkKxXG1r3zuySs0GQNjC2xBBRb9EJlIYFWS6GbsPUfrvvmRV2a6dvf XZAXHrOF0l30oLCks2wqUQnLjyU0cWBHUEWG6Y+ePaw0Mbm1ktvpkoGZBHjhBfKYwi B7uFEabl3vRtrjctHeND1AeJpBZ72c+gaKOg/ZzNTibJxVnK7fN2grML69IQB6MsBH BpVyRJswqscjYs7RJNdAbTx/Zlf0XO+ANH2X/3e4oTROLG/KcresZY91V6qxiCWYPA BqIqJwDfWeC1Q== Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:51:37 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Keith Busch , Vlastimil Babka , "Paul E. McKenney" , Joel Fernandes , Josh Triplett , Boqun Feng , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , Zqiang , Julia Lawall , Jakub Kicinski , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Potapenko , Marco Elver , Dmitry Vyukov , kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Jann Horn , Mateusz Guzik , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, leitao@debian.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm, slab: call kvfree_rcu_barrier() from kmem_cache_destroy() Message-ID: References: <20240807-b4-slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2-0-ea79102f428c@suse.cz> <20240807-b4-slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2-6-ea79102f428c@suse.cz> <2811463a-751f-4443-9125-02628dc315d9@suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:21:19PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM-patch fixes this for me: This is successful with the new kuint test for me as well. I can't readily test this in production where I first learned of this issue (at least not in the near term), but for what it's worth, this looks like a good change to me. Reviewed-by: Keith Busch > > diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c > index 4030907b6b7d..1b5ed5512782 100644 > --- a/mm/slab_common.c > +++ b/mm/slab_common.c > @@ -1304,6 +1304,8 @@ module_param(rcu_min_cached_objs, int, 0444); > static int rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec = 5000; > module_param(rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec, int, 0444); > > +static struct workqueue_struct *rcu_reclaim_wq; > + > /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining a batch. */ > #define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (5 * HZ) > #define KFREE_N_BATCHES 2 > @@ -1632,10 +1634,10 @@ __schedule_delayed_monitor_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > if (delayed_work_pending(&krcp->monitor_work)) { > delay_left = krcp->monitor_work.timer.expires - jiffies; > if (delay < delay_left) > - mod_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); > + mod_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); > return; > } > - queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); > + queue_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); > } > > static void > @@ -1733,7 +1735,7 @@ kvfree_rcu_queue_batch(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > // "free channels", the batch can handle. Break > // the loop since it is done with this CPU thus > // queuing an RCU work is _always_ success here. > - queued = queue_rcu_work(system_unbound_wq, &krwp->rcu_work); > + queued = queue_rcu_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krwp->rcu_work); > WARN_ON_ONCE(!queued); > break; > } > @@ -1883,7 +1885,7 @@ run_page_cache_worker(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING && > !atomic_xchg(&krcp->work_in_progress, 1)) { > if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill)) { > - queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, > + queue_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, > &krcp->page_cache_work, > msecs_to_jiffies(rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec)); > } else { > @@ -2120,6 +2122,10 @@ void __init kvfree_rcu_init(void) > int i, j; > struct shrinker *kfree_rcu_shrinker; > > + rcu_reclaim_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_reclaim", > + WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0); > + WARN_ON(!rcu_reclaim_wq); > + > /* Clamp it to [0:100] seconds interval. */ > if (rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec < 0 || > rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec > 100 * MSEC_PER_SEC) { >