Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp4312147imn; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49MDJJQMN3CSCGYXfAY64kkxxFDB5fyUanDg7E6SAq0R0HZW6LQF7sAojpJAEn8NnO0Pwpe X-Received: by 10.101.96.10 with SMTP id m10mr1201840pgu.281.1523389624494; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1523389624; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ouUpraulJ3yEckmg9hpFcliIRI3t64vH2P5oDoK35VHprnVKagrHHUQrsoRlN5+EJa Ut5IhwzLPJToawZJKOKf6Ih2NbQUKrqelm96qkcvteMayUyBoXyKhRKJVjVXtaQMe8tu KJrKGZ1DehIBnB/7NO1tjT03l6HnaAOslsyC5MWOuppBEqKSGt4EaobjpAXoz8CyZMnd IiUPl2rk+azw9Scptw74BM3vr1OjC8Hgbye7DvoNGGNW6C4KlKLTA6yEAg4ZEIUt+BjV G7fLqNlfQRQB7XK4CoyLDcg9IOYSsxyNOPhapu78iKs5BMLrhhsEJ2nR8ssMGmagcNaD 9w5w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=eDZhkXy5GiulSfpGoaHEGZoX5JmB3K3fIV8Z3L5lSmY=; b=hHaR2DXbPcoQD2rc5z7jiLEWqhvS1A7eA8GF9FrvztXUiHXAFhJGTwzLPJKxqIWCyW qcXDTJ1vFVaXV06/opuuX4+yu8q2OZRgx25RrHfuuvLdWVHsOayGr/GgCxvhUxTujlr0 /feUY1LL9mVNcs8HmaIR7irtpnNDfF3XFGFmJQM3ObWYOAf2P4GMFXi0fhGjuLOv4ZUu QsQO892Civf5B6pL+pXI3RlPXkS7/p2Lldcyd4pruQhUdilcLvRMsxuxZpE14eEiJAYS sYzYrZYjy1PAyGw1xiE9Vq0eR82UwYIljihDi3wxmXbTOH+KyFEHR94LueHpbfJyjEgl KfGw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 22si2246529pga.811.2018.04.10.12.46.27; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753872AbeDJTmc (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:42:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52460 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202AbeDJTmR (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:42:17 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6C8AD4A; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC] mm, slab: reschedule cache_reap() on the same CPU To: Christopher Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Tejun Heo , Lai Jiangshan , John Stultz , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Boyd References: <20180410081531.18053-1-vbabka@suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <983c61d1-1444-db1f-65c1-3b519ac4d57b@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:40:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/10/2018 04:12 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> cache_reap() is initially scheduled in start_cpu_timer() via >> schedule_delayed_work_on(). But then the next iterations are scheduled via >> schedule_delayed_work(), thus using WORK_CPU_UNBOUND. > > That is a bug.. cache_reap must run on the same cpu since it deals with > the per cpu queues of the current cpu. Scheduled_delayed_work() used to > guarantee running on teh same cpu. Did it? When did it stop? (which stable kernels should we backport to?) So is my assumption correct that without specifying a CPU, the next work might be processed on a different cpu than the current one, *and also* be executed with a kthread/u* that can migrate to another cpu *in the middle of the work*? Tejun? >> This patch makes sure schedule_delayed_work_on() is used with the proper cpu >> when scheduling the next iteration. The cpu is stored with delayed_work on a >> new slab_reap_work_struct super-structure. > > The current cpu is readily available via smp_processor_id(). Why a > super structure? Mostly for the WARN_ON_ONCE, and general paranoia. >> @@ -4074,7 +4086,8 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w) >> next_reap_node(); >> out: >> /* Set up the next iteration */ >> - schedule_delayed_work(work, round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); >> + schedule_delayed_work_on(reap_work->cpu, work, >> + round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); > > schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), work, round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); > > instead all of the other changes? If we can rely on that 100%, sure.