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;
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:02:18 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        byungchul.park@lge.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rcu/tree: Add multiple in-flight batches of
 kfree_rcu work
Message-ID: <20190828140218.GB230957@google.com>
References: <5d657e35.1c69fb81.54250.01de@mx.google.com>
 <20190827235253.GB30253@tardis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190827235253.GB30253@tardis>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:52:53AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > During testing, it was observed that amount of memory consumed due
> > kfree_rcu() batching is 300-400MB. Previously we had only a single
> > head_free pointer pointing to the list of rcu_head(s) that are to be
> > freed after a grace period. Until this list is drained, we cannot queue
> > any more objects on it since such objects may not be ready to be
> > reclaimed when the worker thread eventually gets to drainin g the
> > head_free list.
> > 
> > We can do better by maintaining multiple lists as done by this patch.
> > Testing shows that memory consumption came down by around 100-150MB with
> > just adding another list. Adding more than 1 additional list did not
> > show any improvement.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 4f7c3096d786..9b9ae4db1c2d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2688,28 +2688,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> >  
> >  /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining a batch. */
> >  #define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (HZ / 50)
> > +#define KFREE_N_BATCHES 2
> > +
> > +struct kfree_rcu_work {
> > +	/* The rcu_work node for queuing work with queue_rcu_work(). The work
> > +	 * is done after a grace period.
> > +	 */
> > +	struct rcu_work rcu_work;
> > +
> > +	/* The list of objects that have now left ->head and are queued for
> > +	 * freeing after a grace period.
> > +	 */
> > +	struct rcu_head *head_free;
> > +
> > +	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> > +};
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(__typeof__(struct kfree_rcu_work)[KFREE_N_BATCHES], krw);
> >  
> 
> Why not
> 
> 	static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kfree_rcu_work[KFREE_N_BATCHES], krw);
> 
> here? Am I missing something?

Yes, that's better.

> Further, given "struct kfree_rcu_cpu" is only for defining percpu
> variables, how about orginazing the data structure like:
> 
> 	struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
> 		...
> 		struct kfree_rcu_work krws[KFREE_N_BATCHES];
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> This could save one pointer in kfree_rcu_cpu, and I think it provides
> better cache locality for accessing _cpu and _work on the same cpu.
> 
> Thoughts?

Yes, that's better. Thanks, Boqun! Following is the diff which I will fold
into this patch:

---8<-----------------------

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index b3259306b7a5..fac5ae96d8b1 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2717,7 +2717,6 @@ struct kfree_rcu_work {
 
 	struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
 };
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(__typeof__(struct kfree_rcu_work)[KFREE_N_BATCHES], krw);
 
 /*
  * Maximum number of kfree(s) to batch, if this limit is hit then the batch of
@@ -2731,7 +2730,7 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
 	struct rcu_head *head;
 
 	/* Pointer to the per-cpu array of kfree_rcu_work structures */
-	struct kfree_rcu_work *krwp;
+	struct kfree_rcu_work krw_arr[KFREE_N_BATCHES];
 
 	/* Protect concurrent access to this structure and kfree_rcu_work. */
 	spinlock_t lock;
@@ -2800,8 +2799,8 @@ static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&krcp->lock);
 	while (i < KFREE_N_BATCHES) {
-		if (!krcp->krwp[i].head_free) {
-			krwp = &(krcp->krwp[i]);
+		if (!krcp->krw_arr[i].head_free) {
+			krwp = &(krcp->krw_arr[i]);
 			break;
 		}
 		i++;
@@ -3780,13 +3779,11 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
-		struct kfree_rcu_work *krwp = &(per_cpu(krw, cpu)[0]);
 		int i = KFREE_N_BATCHES;
 
 		spin_lock_init(&krcp->lock);
-		krcp->krwp = krwp;
 		while (i--)
-			krwp[i].krcp = krcp;
+			krcp->krw_arr[i].krcp = krcp;
 		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->monitor_work, kfree_rcu_monitor);
 	}
 }