On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:21 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 04:49:42PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:45:21AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:20 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:52 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu 19-01-23 10:52:03, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > > > Maybe even simpler, since we are hit with this VMA freeing flood > > > during exit_mmap (when all VMAs are destroyed), we pass a hint to > > > vm_area_free to batch the destruction and all other cases call > > > call_rcu()? I don't think there will be other cases of VMA destruction > > > floods. > > > > ... or have two different call_rcu functions; one for munmap() and > > one for exit. It'd be nice to use kmem_cache_free_bulk(). > > Good point, kfree_rcu(p, r) where "r" is the name of the rcu_head > structure's field, is much more cache-efficient. > > The penalty is that there is no callback function to do any cleanup. > There is just a kfree()/kvfree (bulk version where applicable), > nothing else. If Liam's suggestion works then we won't need anything additional. We will free the vm_area_structs directly on process exit and use call_rcu() in all other cases. Let's see if Michal knows of any case which still needs an RCU grace period during exit_mmap. > > Thanx, Paul > > -- > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. >
