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: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-40-surenb@google.com>
 <Y8k+syJu7elWAjRj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Y8k+syJu7elWAjRj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:52:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEAL9y70KJ_a=Z_kJpJnNC-ge1aN2ofTupeQ5-FaKh84g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area_free
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, I agree the solution is not stellar. I wanted something simple
but this is probably too simple. OTOH keeping all dead vm_area_structs
on the list without hooking up a shrinker (additional complexity) does
not sound too appealing either. WDYT about time domain throttling to
limit draining the list to say once per second like this:

void vm_area_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
       struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
       bool drain;

       free_anon_vma_name(vma);

       spin_lock(&mm->vma_free_list.lock);
       list_add(&vma->vm_free_list, &mm->vma_free_list.head);
       mm->vma_free_list.size++;
-       drain = mm->vma_free_list.size > VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX;
+       drain = jiffies > mm->last_drain_tm + HZ;

       spin_unlock(&mm->vma_free_list.lock);

-       if (drain)
+       if (drain) {
              drain_free_vmas(mm);
+             mm->last_drain_tm = jiffies;
+       }
}

Ultimately we want to prevent very frequent call_rcu() calls, so
throttling in the time domain seems appropriate. That's the simplest
way I can think of to address your concern about a quick spike in VMA
freeing. It does not place any restriction on the list size and we
might have excessive dead vm_area_structs if after a large spike there
are no vm_area_free() calls but I don't know if that's a real problem,
so not sure we should be addressing it at this time. WDYT?


>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs