From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (mail-lf1-f43.google.com [209.85.167.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0AE2D063B; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 09:14:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757409289; cv=none; b=bENLLS/DrsPMS4Kglt0MT14hxw6H2SZfyDJOdx9vBGnDN3OBmBnyo75IpA8zkwqlqN/rkpbLfaYh3ZtyQlrBgtfH6ZiyWRKC0ogBLq8LCfwgFKS5ZHYFiM76naYB7ZtIG1yED0ha3Y/rQ9FTXulgpgqbq/XaacGU8mhJCuQXk9I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757409289; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zqg5XObHZJ1WhqCdurwjJ3PX7RaCmmcurJQvtEyZEFE=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tFzJEyhuBaBjWL68xo51S/6YVfK4qsl9zVe8gpgV8cEvulzwBy5+y1n5c+zQIoi9ai7hESb3hI2vhgq29Ub2kJJIQLD5gn99ib/MeVqAiIVrmUidkI7GewES0a4w1cu5Dum9F7hUUSjWX45Ole+cvL/JvaSQel7Pijj/uSDAjI8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=nr34zK0p; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="nr34zK0p" Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-55f6507bd53so5763841e87.3; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 02:14:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1757409286; x=1758014086; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/RxmiKOX9ZqvhLioBhgvr1KVktvLZ6CG0rToqxQ3c5A=; b=nr34zK0p1AZrxa0MbYLiKj6zcKmCCAW7gBttDDe7c3izwH/Gbu5zuXfWfgnx8kAJQ5 Ib9nBu8IYz0MrnPpuWglPexVk7jo8xRgmjDIuesoAPKoh+GPc4MENwp5f1y47d2QZoqV 7COhzcgvd8F4a76/iJZuDdL4au/eTplXFvz3rHLDahwHh3c4qtdSUBuyrwotAAbOCDcg XCwNWA1nuhLmLV5Aqb5A7cWOe6QNdMpFfdyc7sTnUTYvL+b3uuUJWuRNyOmwn++5VyEU nXMOTzEBvmubZ28J0dwJaYgEzJr+hwBay2GF597CiOjtp8ysyNxsiGaKRY9WrOSeOxen Gg2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757409286; x=1758014086; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/RxmiKOX9ZqvhLioBhgvr1KVktvLZ6CG0rToqxQ3c5A=; b=G8RGIg/jsRljx96LRFfhf451nImWSOvM1bSAWEIUhnxBcfMh+qtt1vdEzxoA+A7Oty ye5KdMJIkKwXDGWhiirSkhlFMrGB5uBpvHmXfYHvQejxfanpKYTz5g4xEAVCWG31dapK YSVUjVlNL7JqdQk4c2TNlKYnbvaxifOXuGKmkwDqe54LlQ5LowhLW+jnGmcaBAT4axGn TE7mjzBnex5+mmZDvQ+xnOQLmH8acCkFikr9mtZPVQU26zXbZbcGvSZTbFNHqYISs66M QYdngq8tOlxvZNq++NNJI3qUYMyqKSdIdiG9PjIJexSoXTZZrIrgEKUYW2p6bwO+3agL p89Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVRUOQpMYSmr/sg4TXqWWHOO5oKAnb6E17PGLbNRwGirH1PJmIJdaOpNhM7Roa7J3jsjJY9IZA2lYIpsU4=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCVVW3hhsFirqYzoDeMmoTxB0G/GWRTHA8w9JxWyFqwVao08K4NufHe/GUoeBxcUjMZG9CfO@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyRrNLHVE+n+I2rVQxJAP95+aUTGevRUyFo4Safhp7rzJU/YH54 SbADmTaBgddXcEmknMZ49snmJMCOTmCElXfDN/HmuAO3y4eQgdKridcw X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvW91JFnkupGe9JSztU1+EBdAAtPBD+eSxDwYSOs2YLO8xmtEQdOboJjBV/iRK IM2ZvUAJ+UAljLRgERVt125od+i0CsQwpq5ZRSKbGl3uOqJcqGxrUqzeLchkrLyQbAZ3EMZMk1x Vt0+X5/u8VBR9CfzynYYZy36omc5V2ZK4q68SHK/qm/WLU23W3H2B/KHV3wHqzx+19Ei77oDOdg q6AieeDDDdGBIvaBIzO0bhhtqOpa/8E8PANfBjcTtr5VSjm0c568GoComs+jD93l6L+q0Jby4OR znYD0oSEk0pCge8Rs2FYFe0uuYa5zBq9gWJkBrNpI/8eJ/AxwJRBUQMOOEs0vWLue/LPoRhAkZt dy2Kp65ParAY/yCvz+KEWZ9mb6jy0Vupn2Q8nRrz0kxoCRyJxdKXCXNlQXuQ2 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFf6hq4f3MPnoPFO1ztcKAg+1ws4rmkr3VqrlRe2DP1k8mBc6kVk8q2eX06JVy1oqjj8YH2sQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:10d6:b0:568:993c:f047 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-568993cfb7bmr498526e87.42.1757409285803; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-95-203-28-174.mobileonline.telia.com. [95.203.28.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-56817f72e64sm384445e87.104.2025.09.09.02.14.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Sep 2025 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 11:14:43 +0200 To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Suren Baghdasaryan , "Liam R. Howlett" , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Roman Gushchin , Harry Yoo , Sidhartha Kumar , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, maple-tree@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/21] slab: add sheaf support for batching kfree_rcu() operations Message-ID: References: <20250903-slub-percpu-caches-v7-0-71c114cdefef@suse.cz> <20250903-slub-percpu-caches-v7-4-71c114cdefef@suse.cz> <6f8274da-a010-4bb3-b3d6-690481b5ace0@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, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:08:20AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 02:45:11PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 9/8/25 13:59, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >> Extend the sheaf infrastructure for more efficient kfree_rcu() handling. > > >> For caches with sheaves, on each cpu maintain a rcu_free sheaf in > > >> addition to main and spare sheaves. > > >> > > >> kfree_rcu() operations will try to put objects on this sheaf. Once full, > > >> the sheaf is detached and submitted to call_rcu() with a handler that > > >> will try to put it in the barn, or flush to slab pages using bulk free, > > >> when the barn is full. Then a new empty sheaf must be obtained to put > > >> more objects there. > > >> > > >> It's possible that no free sheaves are available to use for a new > > >> rcu_free sheaf, and the allocation in kfree_rcu() context can only use > > >> GFP_NOWAIT and thus may fail. In that case, fall back to the existing > > >> kfree_rcu() implementation. > > >> > > >> Expected advantages: > > >> - batching the kfree_rcu() operations, that could eventually replace the > > >> existing batching > > >> - sheaves can be reused for allocations via barn instead of being > > >> flushed to slabs, which is more efficient > > >> - this includes cases where only some cpus are allowed to process rcu > > >> callbacks (Android) > > >> > > >> Possible disadvantage: > > >> - objects might be waiting for more than their grace period (it is > > >> determined by the last object freed into the sheaf), increasing memory > > >> usage - but the existing batching does that too. > > >> > > >> Only implement this for CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED as the tiny > > >> implementation favors smaller memory footprint over performance. > > >> > > >> Add CONFIG_SLUB_STATS counters free_rcu_sheaf and free_rcu_sheaf_fail to > > >> count how many kfree_rcu() used the rcu_free sheaf successfully and how > > >> many had to fall back to the existing implementation. > > >> > > >> Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo > > >> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan > > >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka > > >> --- > > >> mm/slab.h | 2 + > > >> mm/slab_common.c | 24 +++++++ > > >> mm/slub.c | 192 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > >> 3 files changed, 216 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h > > >> index 206987ce44a4d053ebe3b5e50784d2dd23822cd1..f1866f2d9b211bb0d7f24644b80ef4b50a7c3d24 100644 > > >> --- a/mm/slab.h > > >> +++ b/mm/slab.h > > >> @@ -435,6 +435,8 @@ static inline bool is_kmalloc_normal(struct kmem_cache *s) > > >> return !(s->flags & (SLAB_CACHE_DMA|SLAB_ACCOUNT|SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT)); > > >> } > > >> > > >> +bool __kfree_rcu_sheaf(struct kmem_cache *s, void *obj); > > >> + > > >> #define SLAB_CORE_FLAGS (SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN | SLAB_CACHE_DMA | \ > > >> SLAB_CACHE_DMA32 | SLAB_PANIC | \ > > >> SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU | SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS | \ > > >> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c > > >> index e2b197e47866c30acdbd1fee4159f262a751c5a7..2d806e02568532a1000fd3912db6978e945dcfa8 100644 > > >> --- a/mm/slab_common.c > > >> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c > > >> @@ -1608,6 +1608,27 @@ static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work) > > >> kvfree_rcu_list(head); > > >> } > > >> > > >> +static bool kfree_rcu_sheaf(void *obj) > > >> +{ > > >> + struct kmem_cache *s; > > >> + struct folio *folio; > > >> + struct slab *slab; > > >> + > > >> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(obj)) > > >> + return false; > > >> + > > >> + folio = virt_to_folio(obj); > > >> + if (unlikely(!folio_test_slab(folio))) > > >> + return false; > > >> + > > >> + slab = folio_slab(folio); > > >> + s = slab->slab_cache; > > >> + if (s->cpu_sheaves) > > >> + return __kfree_rcu_sheaf(s, obj); > > >> + > > >> + return false; > > >> +} > > >> + > > >> static bool > > >> need_offload_krc(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > > >> { > > >> @@ -1952,6 +1973,9 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void *ptr) > > >> if (!head) > > >> might_sleep(); > > >> > > >> + if (kfree_rcu_sheaf(ptr)) > > >> + return; > > >> + > > > Uh.. I have some concerns about this. > > > > > > This patch introduces a new path which is a collision to the > > > existing kvfree_rcu() logic. It implements some batching which > > > we already have. > > > > Yes but for caches with sheaves it's better to recycle the whole sheaf (as > > described), which is so different from the existing batching scheme that I'm > > not sure if there's a sensible way to combine them. > > > > > - kvfree_rcu_barrier() does not know about "sheaf" path. Am i missing > > > something? How do you guarantee that kvfree_rcu_barrier() flushes > > > sheafs? If it is part of kvfree_rcu() it has to care about this. > > > > Hm good point, thanks. I've taken care of handling flushing related to > > kfree_rcu() sheaves in kmem_cache_destroy(), but forgot that > > kvfree_rcu_barrier() can be also used outside of that - we have one user in > > codetag_unload_module() currently. > > > > > - we do not allocate in kvfree_rcu() path because of PREEMMPT_RT, i.e. > > > kvfree_rcu() is supposed it can be called from the non-sleeping contexts. > > > > Hm I could not find where that distinction is in the code, can you give a > > hint please. In __kfree_rcu_sheaf() I do only have a GFP_NOWAIT attempt. > > > For PREEMPT_RT a regular spin-lock is an rt-mutex which can sleep. We > made kvfree_rcu() to make it possible to invoke it from non-sleep contexts: > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > > preempt_disable() or something similar; > kvfree_rcu(); > GFP_NOWAIT - lock rt-mutex > > If GFP_NOWAIT semantic does not access any spin-locks then we are safe > or if it uses raw_spin_locks. > And this is valid only for double argument, single argument you can invoke from sleeping context only, then you can allocate. -- Uladzislau Rezki