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;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
        Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@redhat.com>, P J P <ppandit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fs/buffer.c: update per-CPU bh_lru cache via RCU
In-Reply-To: <ZCXipBvmhAC1+eRi@tpad>
References: <ZCXipBvmhAC1+eRi@tpad>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 16:18:39 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmha5xwqtrk.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 30/03/23 16:27, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> +/*
> + * invalidate_bh_lrus() is called rarely - but not only at unmount.
> + */
>  void invalidate_bh_lrus(void)
>  {
> -	on_each_cpu_cond(has_bh_in_lru, invalidate_bh_lru, NULL, 1);
> +	int cpu, oidx;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&bh_lru_invalidate_mutex);
> +	cpus_read_lock();
> +	oidx = bh_lru_idx;

> +	bh_lru_idx++;
> +	if (bh_lru_idx >= 2)
> +		bh_lru_idx = 0;
> +

You could make this a bool and flip it:
  bh_lru_idx = !bh_lru_idx

> +	/* Assign the per-CPU bh_lru pointer */
> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(bh_lrup, cpu),
> +				   per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus[bh_lru_idx], cpu));
> +	synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> +
> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +		struct bh_lru *b = per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus[oidx], cpu);
> +
> +		bh_lru_lock();
> +		__invalidate_bh_lrus(b);
> +		bh_lru_unlock();

Given the bh_lrup has been updated and we're past the synchronize_rcu(),
what is bh_lru_lock() used for here?

> +	}
> +	cpus_read_unlock();
> +	mutex_unlock(&bh_lru_invalidate_mutex);

Re scalability, this is shifting a set of per-CPU-IPI callbacks to a single
CPU, which isn't great. Can we consider doing something like [1], i.e. in
the general case send an IPI to:

  rcu_assign_pointer() + call_rcu(/* invalidation callback */)

and in the case we're NOHZ_FULL and the target CPU is not executing in the
kernel, we do that remotely to reduce interference. We might want to batch
the synchronize_rcu() for the remote invalidates, maybe some abuse of the
API like so?

  bool do_local_invalidate(int cpu, struct cpumask *mask)
  {
          if (cpu_in_kernel(cpu)) {
              __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mask);
              return true;
          }

          return false;
  }

  void invalidate_bh_lrus(void)
  {
          cpumask_var_t cpumask;

          cpus_read_lock();
          cpumask_copy(&cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
          on_each_cpu_cond(do_local_invalidate, invalidate_bh_lru, &cpumask, 1);

          for_each_cpu(cpu, &cpumask)
                  rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(bh_lrup, cpu),
                                             per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus[bh_lru_idx], cpu));

          synchronize_rcu_expedited();

          for_each_cpu(cpu, &cpumask) {
                  // Do remote invalidate here
          }
  }

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230404134224.137038-4-ypodemsk@redhat.com/

>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(invalidate_bh_lrus);
>
> @@ -1465,8 +1505,10 @@ void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void)
>       struct bh_lru *b;
>
>       bh_lru_lock();
> -	b = this_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	b = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(bh_lrup, smp_processor_id()));
>       __invalidate_bh_lrus(b);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>       bh_lru_unlock();
>  }
>
> @@ -2968,15 +3010,25 @@ void free_buffer_head(struct buffer_head *bh)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_buffer_head);
>
> +static int buffer_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(bh_lrup, cpu),
> +			   per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus[bh_lru_idx], cpu));
> +	return 0;
> +}

What serializes this against invalidate_bh_lrus()? Are you relying on this
running under cpus_write_lock()?