Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:59:14 +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: <Y85acuBFkGr03Qd7@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230109205336.3665937-40-surenb@google.com>
 <Y8k+syJu7elWAjRj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAJuCfpEAL9y70KJ_a=Z_kJpJnNC-ge1aN2ofTupeQ5-FaKh84g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8pWW9Am3mDP53qJ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAJuCfpHeuckG8YuNTgdDcNHNzJ3sQExD_f1hwXG_xmS7Z-925g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHeuckG8YuNTgdDcNHNzJ3sQExD_f1hwXG_xmS7Z-925g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 20-01-23 08:20:43, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:52 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 19-01-23 10:52:03, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I suspect you have missed my idea. I do not really want to keep the list
> > around or any shrinker. It is dead simple. Collect all vmas in
> > remove_vma and then call_rcu the whole list at once after the whole list
> > (be it from exit_mmap or remove_mt). See?
> 
> Yes, I understood your idea but keeping dead objects until the process
> exits even when the system is low on memory (no shrinkers attached)
> seems too wasteful. If we do this I would advocate for attaching a
> shrinker.

I am still not sure we are on the same page here. No, vmas shouldn't lay
around un ntil the process exit. I am really suggesting queuing only for
remove_vma paths. You can have a different rcu callback than the one
used for trivial single vma removal paths.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs