Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp923545ybb; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtcXqE51g3HtoDLeuDVnahVZoyXSU/KAfs3cK7JPUuCu36O6ZyFPd+HRSRU50NPdpGFozo9 X-Received: by 2002:a4a:8926:: with SMTP id f35mr16107297ooi.97.1585768100643; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1585768100; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=VMnsUPlqF8LUvVtT3qVA+sbvqXmJoP8+kVSTjXQiY+qUqlrGMCDSl45OEbxd7Cg56W e/STMR0ofOw10Qfa7gyaM33NysFK6f79WbBhrRUSeP3Pm9I8VcQrvCNFkSSNJa+ti0rK 8XBh0CAMJB+arCdkC/1TxZEiNrzedg42Gi4FGSEl975oF7rPBJVq3hova0zlNfajK97T ovV9xRHRzgoc0WeR1CYQ46ksQs4GxDgpOsvLIqINq3IjcKd9TVzcq7tcjv0U+p82Z+wo AF2N9oDi76JymEi0d7GxkM9dvc5uOSLjI4RUHhw9z8pl+a0tiAqdMZRNN2xHJoBm1ZR4 /8zw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:date:from:dkim-signature; bh=f3gOU6KvThAZ/bQ9zaPHgqs0KyrN+k/G9LgmPKVwVsg=; b=TD4z7IADbTu0XvJ3KHqKEGroA6YC7KkRySGbtyYRdUujIpb6jx2yD9OSS1PvapTUKl WNHiFad8ITtHleLu42YOKzpBkniwdf7jWpEMCSYtpVK4MJQD9ta+hL3WBaGpyuRnb88g xdaQ8FUc2MSwinMehn/3Fe7ByhM3C1LMf/yu3d0mN4hPXGv5Vah4nlPOXJIz7DWnXUTD lWm6dS7Hr8t6ETDOXcqZmK7s2O/dpzIn300LuXUD0BFM3n2cvE81EiU6Gdvn7G37xbqw MASIAgq1JdUz9kuEUAMUs++P+P6cFsBGODKU9yUZFbf4acMiopXQsi6fbfUnVmSbj2jf y3yA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b="C3p33A/B"; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b14si1212216otj.154.2020.04.01.12.08.07; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:08:20 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b="C3p33A/B"; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732441AbgDATGB (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:06:01 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:43016 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726785AbgDATF7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:05:59 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id g27so607278ljn.10; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:05:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=f3gOU6KvThAZ/bQ9zaPHgqs0KyrN+k/G9LgmPKVwVsg=; b=C3p33A/BRXhUYLxfrivTHH70/6MyRFvTmN9PTYhjXrj1PQjHhkjQgEpG49zwsezCB9 fYD8hwXhwSLYNCF/ueKd1SqJYhP0LYe7mTmXJ1VnNjowibX/9IPL95ig4cJ1fC6zwjYt Y25dqgUr3aATMzAU/qz18lOn8ygfAWTTDphvgHII0MIHni/kfbJfXbtIxT8vFKkkx3S0 KzCJioRqizSgK/Co20+D9bK81E7d/HpMVUpINDSlX2phTtqPtsERKdOyGNaq90QbyV/2 u51cZ6s6CQDVdYYEhjCjB8NOHd4NjJIZluxN/SWNWXVV/Q0q4w87eqPSTKAxRDCkBAE3 jvsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=f3gOU6KvThAZ/bQ9zaPHgqs0KyrN+k/G9LgmPKVwVsg=; b=dEqF/owOsji10AJ1Bf9eQRqH84zF+IJAx61MOR7oqLRp92qD6TVHAgSv2yrS4fHuiF M37Pzx/+GYhPXmLEWMjbEYBulU83rNHvRStWhUjO/+qJOpiDzJw0So6zXvSzvNK8uP4f WhcoCpM2JYOS41GNNllSp9G/m33/5MoXgbuz90ZDxlVOfY7UoRE2jUk/TLStIpVZ57Mc pLmAIekIy/gGWhCe2EjNUb379s35HVY8+4B2LvnEE4IS1Wc9Sd2Be5iXMK5AExWBMuOE Fjjt2wyF5SLnrACt+0aC3ywCqnuw7R/8KDW/3W3NfGX4T+vCUJZtpQ+2NzO8GNM8ekDm gRmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYWGA5DfZlrFy8+q5wMb2Bf1tzeUoWNWgt3tK3oZMInxLDvmsX1 s258l8jHCKy+HfLsOuWKfDU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1102:: with SMTP id d2mr14234025ljo.102.1585767956556; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (h5ef52e31.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y124sm2245266lff.48.2020.04.01.12.05.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:05:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:05:48 +0200 To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org, neilb@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, mgorman@suse.de, Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Use GFP_MEMALLOC for alloc memory to free memory pattern Message-ID: <20200401190548.GA6360@pc636> References: <20200331140433.GA26498@pc636> <20200331150911.GC236678@google.com> <20200331160119.GA27614@pc636> <20200331183000.GD236678@google.com> <20200401122550.GA32593@pc636> <20200401134745.GV19865@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200401181601.GA4042@pc636> <20200401182615.GE19865@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200401183745.GA5960@pc636> <20200401185439.GG19865@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200401185439.GG19865@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:54:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:37:45PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:26:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:16:01PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. Per discussion with Paul, we discussed that it is better if we > > > > > > > pre-allocate N number of array blocks per-CPU and use it for the cache. > > > > > > > Default for N being 1 and tunable with a boot parameter. I agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed before, we can make use of memory pool API for such > > > > > > purpose. But i am not sure if it should be one pool per CPU or > > > > > > one pool per NR_CPUS, that would contain NR_CPUS * N pre-allocated > > > > > > blocks. > > > > > > > > > > There are advantages and disadvantages either way. The advantage of the > > > > > per-CPU pool is that you don't have to worry about something like lock > > > > > contention causing even more pain during an OOM event. One potential > > > > > problem wtih the per-CPU pool can happen when callbacks are offloaded, > > > > > in which case the CPUs needing the memory might never be getting it, > > > > > because in the offloaded case (RCU_NOCB_CPU=y) the CPU posting callbacks > > > > > might never be invoking them. > > > > > > > > > > But from what I know now, systems built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y > > > > > either don't have heavy callback loads (HPC systems) or are carefully > > > > > configured (real-time systems). Plus large systems would probably end > > > > > up needing something pretty close to a slab allocator to keep from dying > > > > > from lock contention, and it is hard to justify that level of complexity > > > > > at this point. > > > > > > > > > > Or is there some way to mark a specific slab allocator instance as being > > > > > able to keep some amount of memory no matter what the OOM conditions are? > > > > > If not, the current per-CPU pre-allocated cache is a better choice in the > > > > > near term. > > > > > > > > > As for mempool API: > > > > > > > > mempool_alloc() just tries to make regular allocation taking into > > > > account passed gfp_t bitmask. If it fails due to memory pressure, > > > > it uses reserved preallocated pool that consists of number of > > > > desirable elements(preallocated when a pool is created). > > > > > > > > mempoll_free() returns an element to to pool, if it detects that > > > > current reserved elements are lower then minimum allowed elements, > > > > it will add an element to reserved pool, i.e. refill it. Otherwise > > > > just call kfree() or whatever we define as "element-freeing function." > > > > > > Unless I am missing something, mempool_alloc() acquires a per-mempool > > > lock on each invocation under OOM conditions. For our purposes, this > > > is essentially a global lock. This will not be at all acceptable on a > > > large system. > > > > > It uses pool->lock to access to reserved objects, so if we have one memory > > pool per one CPU then it would be serialized. > > I am having difficulty parsing your sentence. It looks like your thought > is to invoke mempool_create() for each CPU, so that the locking would be > on a per-CPU basis, as in 128 invocations of mempool_init() on a system > having 128 hardware threads. Is that your intent? > In order to serialize it, you need to have it per CPU. So if you have 128 cpus, it means: for_each_possible_cpu(...) cpu_pool = mempool_create(); but please keep in mind that it is not my intention, but i had a though about mempool API. Because it has pre-reserve logic inside. -- Vlad Rezki