On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:27:18PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch series aims to make slab shrink lockless. > > 1. Background > ============= > > On our servers, we often find the following system cpu hotspots: > > 44.16% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock > 14.12% [kernel] [k] up_read > 13.43% [kernel] [k] shrink_slab > 5.25% [kernel] [k] count_shadow_nodes > 3.42% [kernel] [k] idr_find > > Then we used bpftrace to capture its calltrace as follows: > > @[ > down_read_trylock+5 > shrink_slab+292 > shrink_node+640 > do_try_to_free_pages+211 > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+266 > try_charge_memcg+386 > charge_memcg+51 > __mem_cgroup_charge+44 > __handle_mm_fault+1416 > handle_mm_fault+260 > do_user_addr_fault+459 > exc_page_fault+104 > asm_exc_page_fault+38 > clear_user_rep_good+18 > read_zero+100 > vfs_read+176 > ksys_read+93 > do_syscall_64+62 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+114 > ]: 1868979 > > It is easy to see that this is caused by the frequent failure to obtain the > read lock of shrinker_rwsem when reclaiming slab memory. > > Currently, the shrinker_rwsem is a global lock. And the following cases may > cause the above system cpu hotspots: > > a. the write lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long. For example, there > are many memcgs in the system, which causes some paths to hold locks and > traverse it for too long. (e.g. expand_shrinker_info()) > b. the read lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long, and a writer came at > this time. Then this writer will be forced to wait and block all subsequent > readers. > For example: > - be scheduled when the read lock of shrinker_rwsem is held in > do_shrink_slab() > - some shrinker are blocked for too long. Like the case mentioned in the > patchset[1]. > > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191129214541.3110-1-ptikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > And all the down_read_trylock() hotspots caused by the above cases can be > solved by replacing the shrinker_rwsem trylocks with SRCU. Glad to see that making SRCU unconditional was helpful! And I do very much like the idea of the shrinker running better! The main thing that enabled unconditional SRCU was the code added in v5.19 to dynamically allocate SRCU's srcu_node combining tree. This is important for a number of Linux distributions that have NR_CPUS up in the thousands, for which this combining tree is quite large. In v5.19 and later, srcu_struct structures without frequent call_srcu() invocations never allocate that combining tree. Even srcu_struct structures that have enough call_srcu() activity to cause the lock contention that in turn forces the combining tree to be allocated, that combining tree is sized for the actual number of CPUs present, which is usually way smaller than NR_CPUS. So if you are going to backport this back past v5.19, you might also need those SRCU changes. Or not, depending on how much memory your systems are equipped with. ;-) Thanx, Paul > 2. Survey > ========= > > Before doing the code implementation, I found that there were many similar > submissions in the community: > > a. Davidlohr Bueso submitted a patch in 2015. > Subject: [PATCH -next v2] mm: srcu-ify shrinkers > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1437080113.3596.2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Result: It was finally merged into the linux-next branch, but failed on arm > allnoconfig (without CONFIG_SRCU) > > b. Tetsuo Handa submitted a patchset in 2017. > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mm,vmscan: Kill global shrinker lock. > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1510609063-3327-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Result: Finally chose to use the current simple way (break when > rwsem_is_contended()). And Christoph Hellwig suggested to using SRCU, > but SRCU was not unconditionally enabled at the time. > > c. Kirill Tkhai submitted a patchset in 2018. > Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/10] Introduce lockless shrink_slab() > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain/ > Result: At that time, SRCU was not unconditionally enabled, and there were > some objections to enabling SRCU. Later, because Kirill's focus was > moved to other things, this patchset was not continued to be updated. > > d. Sultan Alsawaf submitted a patch in 2021. > Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Replace shrinker_rwsem trylocks with SRCU protection > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210927074823.5825-1-sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Result: Rejected because SRCU was not unconditionally enabled. > > We can find that almost all these historical commits were abandoned because SRCU > was not unconditionally enabled. But now SRCU has been unconditionally enable > by Paul E. McKenney in 2023 [2], so it's time to replace shrinker_rwsem trylocks > with SRCU. > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230105003759.GA1769545@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1/ > > 3. Reproduction and testing > =========================== > > We can reproduce the down_read_trylock() hotspot through the following script: > > ``` > #!/bin/bash > DIR="/root/shrinker/memcg/mnt" > > do_create() > { > mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test > echo 200M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes > for i in `seq 0 $1`; > do > mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/$i; > echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/$i/cgroup.procs; > mkdir -p $DIR/$i; > done > } > > do_mount() > { > for i in `seq $1 $2`; > do > mount -t tmpfs $i $DIR/$i; > done > } > > do_touch() > { > for i in `seq $1 $2`; > do > echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/$i/cgroup.procs; > dd if=/dev/zero of=$DIR/$i/file$i bs=1M count=1 & > done > } > > do_create 2000 > do_mount 0 2000 > do_touch 0 1000 > ``` > > Save the above script and execute it, we can get the following perf hotspots: > > 46.60% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock > 18.70% [kernel] [k] up_read > 15.44% [kernel] [k] shrink_slab > 4.37% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit > 2.75% [kernel] [k] xa_load > 2.07% [kernel] [k] idr_find > 1.73% [kernel] [k] do_shrink_slab > 1.42% [kernel] [k] shrink_lruvec > 0.74% [kernel] [k] shrink_node > 0.60% [kernel] [k] list_lru_count_one > > After applying this patchset, the hotspot becomes as follows: > > 19.53% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit > 14.63% [kernel] [k] do_shrink_slab > 14.58% [kernel] [k] shrink_slab > 11.83% [kernel] [k] shrink_lruvec > 9.33% [kernel] [k] __blk_flush_plug > 6.67% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_iter > 3.73% [kernel] [k] list_lru_count_one > 2.43% [kernel] [k] shrink_node > 1.96% [kernel] [k] super_cache_count > 1.78% [kernel] [k] __rcu_read_unlock > 1.38% [kernel] [k] __srcu_read_lock > 1.30% [kernel] [k] xas_descend > > We can see that the slab reclaim is no longer blocked by shinker_rwsem trylock, > which realizes the lockless slab reclaim. > > This series is based on next-20230217. > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. > > Thanks, > Qi. > > Changelog in v1 -> v2: > - add a map_nr_max field to shrinker_info (suggested by Kirill) > - use shrinker_mutex in reparent_shrinker_deferred() (pointed by Kirill) > > Qi Zheng (7): > mm: vmscan: add a map_nr_max field to shrinker_info > mm: vmscan: make global slab shrink lockless > mm: vmscan: make memcg slab shrink lockless > mm: shrinkers: make count and scan in shrinker debugfs lockless > mm: vmscan: hold write lock to reparent shrinker nr_deferred > mm: vmscan: remove shrinker_rwsem from synchronize_shrinkers() > mm: shrinkers: convert shrinker_rwsem to mutex > > drivers/md/dm-cache-metadata.c | 2 +- > drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c | 2 +- > fs/super.c | 2 +- > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 1 + > mm/shrinker_debug.c | 38 ++++----- > mm/vmscan.c | 142 +++++++++++++++++---------------- > 6 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.20.1 >
