Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221029132856.3752018-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <Y2JkoVV3jaVS4y0Q@pc636>
In-Reply-To: <Y2JkoVV3jaVS4y0Q@pc636>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRZO086TUJCFzuGpAWRpQ-uKD1S5wDipJ9hR9=XddNFSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/kfree: Do not request RCU when not needed
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paulmck@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 8:37 AM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:28:56PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > On ChromeOS, I am (almost) always seeing the optimization trigger.
> > Tested boot up and trace_printk'ing how often it triggers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 591187b6352e..3e4c50b9fd33 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2935,6 +2935,7 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu_work {
> >
> >  /**
> >   * struct kfree_rcu_cpu - batch up kfree_rcu() requests for RCU grace period
> > + * @rdp: The rdp of the CPU that this kfree_rcu corresponds to.
> >   * @head: List of kfree_rcu() objects not yet waiting for a grace period
> >   * @bkvhead: Bulk-List of kvfree_rcu() objects not yet waiting for a grace period
> >   * @krw_arr: Array of batches of kfree_rcu() objects waiting for a grace period
> > @@ -2964,6 +2965,8 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
> >       struct kfree_rcu_cpu_work krw_arr[KFREE_N_BATCHES];
> >       raw_spinlock_t lock;
> >       struct delayed_work monitor_work;
> > +     struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > +     unsigned long last_gp_seq;
> >       bool initialized;
> >       int count;
> >
> > @@ -3167,6 +3170,7 @@ schedule_delayed_monitor_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> >                       mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay);
> >               return;
> >       }
> > +     krcp->last_gp_seq = krcp->rdp->gp_seq;
> >       queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -3217,7 +3221,17 @@ static void kfree_rcu_monitor(struct work_struct *work)
> >                       // be that the work is in the pending state when
> >                       // channels have been detached following by each
> >                       // other.
> > -                     queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
> > +                     //
> > +                     // NOTE about gp_seq wrap: In case of gp_seq overflow,
> > +                     // it is possible for rdp->gp_seq to be less than
> > +                     // krcp->last_gp_seq even though a GP might be over. In
> > +                     // this rare case, we would just have one extra GP.
> > +                     if (krcp->last_gp_seq &&
> >
> This check can be eliminated i think. A kfree_rcu_cpu is defined as
> static so by default the last_gp_set is set to zero.

Ack.

> > @@ -4802,6 +4816,8 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
> >       for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> >               struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
> >
> > +             krcp->rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > +             krcp->last_gp_seq = 0;
> >
> Yep. This one can be just dropped.
>
> But all the rest looks good :) I will give it a try from test point of
> view. It is interested from the memory footprint point of view.

Ack. Thanks. Even though we should not sample rdp->gp_seq, I think it
is still worth a test.