On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 05:27:38PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Extend the sheaf infrastructure for more efficient kfree_rcu() handling.
> For caches with sheaves, on each cpu maintain a rcu_free sheaf in
> addition to main and spare sheaves.
>
> kfree_rcu() operations will try to put objects on this sheaf. Once full,
> the sheaf is detached and submitted to call_rcu() with a handler that
> will try to put in in the barn, or flush to slab pages using bulk free,
> when the barn is full. Then a new empty sheaf must be obtained to put
> more objects there.
>
> It's possible that no free sheaves are available to use for a new
> rcu_free sheaf, and the allocation in kfree_rcu() context can only use
> GFP_NOWAIT and thus may fail. In that case, fall back to the existing
> kfree_rcu() machinery.
>
> Expected advantages:
> - batching the kfree_rcu() operations, that could eventually replace the
> existing batching
> - sheaves can be reused for allocations via barn instead of being
> flushed to slabs, which is more efficient
> - this includes cases where only some cpus are allowed to process rcu
> callbacks (Android)
>
> Possible disadvantage:
> - objects might be waiting for more than their grace period (it is
> determined by the last object freed into the sheaf), increasing memory
> usage - but the existing batching does that too?
>
> Only implement this for CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED as the tiny
> implementation favors smaller memory footprint over performance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/slab.h | 2 +
> mm/slab_common.c | 21 ++++++++
> mm/slub.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> index 8daaec53b6ecfc44171191d421adb12e5cba2c58..94e9959e1aefa350d3d74e3f5309fde7a5cf2ec8 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.h
> +++ b/mm/slab.h
> @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ static inline bool is_kmalloc_normal(struct kmem_cache *s)
> return !(s->flags & (SLAB_CACHE_DMA|SLAB_ACCOUNT|SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT));
> }
>
> +bool __kfree_rcu_sheaf(struct kmem_cache *s, void *obj);
> +
> /* Legal flag mask for kmem_cache_create(), for various configurations */
> #define SLAB_CORE_FLAGS (SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN | SLAB_CACHE_DMA | \
> SLAB_CACHE_DMA32 | SLAB_PANIC | \
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index ceeefb287899a82f30ad79b403556001c1860311..c6853450ed74160cfcb497c09f92c1f9f7b12629 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -1613,6 +1613,24 @@ static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> kvfree_rcu_list(head);
> }
>
> +static bool kfree_rcu_sheaf(void *obj)
> +{
> + struct kmem_cache *s;
> + struct folio *folio;
> + struct slab *slab;
> +
> + folio = virt_to_folio(obj);
> + if (unlikely(!folio_test_slab(folio)))
> + return false;
Does virt_to_folio() work for vmalloc addresses?
Probably it should check is_vmalloc_addr() first?
Otherwise look good to me.
> +
> + slab = folio_slab(folio);
> + s = slab->slab_cache;
> + if (s->cpu_sheaves)
> + return __kfree_rcu_sheaf(s, obj);
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static bool
> need_offload_krc(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> {
> @@ -1957,6 +1975,9 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void *ptr)
> if (!head)
> might_sleep();
>
> + if (kfree_rcu_sheaf(ptr))
> + return;
> +
> // Queue the object but don't yet schedule the batch.
> if (debug_rcu_head_queue(ptr)) {
> // Probable double kfree_rcu(), just leak.
--
Cheers,
Harry
