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;
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:59:31 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org,
        jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, dave@stgolabs.net,
        willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com,
        edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com,
        arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com,
        leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in
 vm_area_free
Message-ID: <Y8k+syJu7elWAjRj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230109205336.3665937-40-surenb@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230109205336.3665937-40-surenb@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:34, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> call_rcu() can take a long time when callback offloading is enabled.
> Its use in the vm_area_free can cause regressions in the exit path when
> multiple VMAs are being freed. To minimize that impact, place VMAs into
> a list and free them in groups using one call_rcu() call per group.

After some more clarification I can understand how call_rcu might not be
super happy about thousands of callbacks to be invoked and I do agree
that this is not really optimal.

On the other hand I do not like this solution much either.
VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX is arbitrary and it won't really help all that
much with processes with a huge number of vmas either. It would still be
in housands of callbacks to be scheduled without a good reason.

Instead, are there any other cases than remove_vma that need this
batching? We could easily just link all the vmas into linked list and
use a single call_rcu instead, no? This would both simplify the
implementation, remove the scaling issue as well and we do not have to
argue whether VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX should be epsilon or epsilon + 1.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs