On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:53:23PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:17:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 08:28:05AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Hi Paul, others,
> > >
> > > So it seems that vhost needs to call kfree_rcu from an ioctl. My worry
> > > is what happens if userspace starts cycling through lots of these
> > > ioctls. Given we actually use rcu as an optimization, we could just
> > > disable the optimization temporarily - but the question would be how to
> > > detect an excessive rate without working too hard :) .
> > >
> > > I guess we could define as excessive any rate where callback is
> > > outstanding at the time when new structure is allocated. I have very
> > > little understanding of rcu internals - so I wanted to check that the
> > > following more or less implements this heuristic before I spend time
> > > actually testing it.
> > >
> > > Could others pls take a look and let me know?
> >
> > These look good as a way of seeing if there are any outstanding callbacks,
> > but in the case of Tree RCU, call_rcu_outstanding() would almost never
> > return false on a busy system.
>
> Hmm, ok. Maybe I could rename this to e.g. call_rcu_busy
> and change the tree one to do rcu_segcblist_n_lazy_cbs > 1000?
Or the function could simply return the number of callbacks queued
on the current CPU, and let the caller decide how many is too many.
> > Here are some alternatives:
> >
> > o RCU uses some pieces of Rao Shoaib kfree_rcu() patches.
> > The idea is to make kfree_rcu() locally buffer requests into
> > batches of (say) 1,000, but processing smaller batches when RCU
> > is idle, or when some smallish amout of time has passed with
> > no more kfree_rcu() request from that CPU. RCU than takes in
> > the batch using not call_rcu(), but rather queue_rcu_work().
> > The resulting batch of kfree() calls would therefore execute in
> > workqueue context rather than in softirq context, which should
> > be much easier on the system.
> >
> > In theory, this would allow people to use kfree_rcu() without
> > worrying quite so much about overload. It would also not be
> > that hard to implement.
> >
> > o Subsystems vulnerable to user-induced kfree_rcu() flooding use
> > call_rcu() instead of kfree_rcu(). Keep a count of the number
> > of things waiting for a grace period, and when this gets too
> > large, disable the optimization. It will then drain down, at
> > which point the optimization can be re-enabled.
> >
> > But please note that callbacks are -not- guaranteed to run on
> > the CPU that queued them. So yes, you would need a per-CPU
> > counter, but you would need to periodically sum it up to check
> > against the global state. Or keep track of the CPU that
> > did the call_rcu() so that you can atomically decrement in
> > the callback the same counter that was atomically incremented
> > just before the call_rcu(). Or any number of other approaches.
>
> I'm really looking for something we can do this merge window
> and without adding too much code, and kfree_rcu is intended to
> fix a bug.
> Adding call_rcu and careful accounting is something that I'm not
> happy adding with merge window already open.
OK, then I suggest having the interface return you the number of
callbacks. That allows you to experiment with the cutoff.
Give or take the ioctl overhead...
> > Also, the overhead is important. For example, as far as I know,
> > current RCU gracefully handles close(open(...)) in a tight userspace
> > loop. But there might be trouble due to tight userspace loops around
> > lighter-weight operations.
> >
> > So an important question is "Just how fast is your ioctl?" If it takes
> > (say) 100 microseconds to execute, there should be absolutely no problem.
> > On the other hand, if it can execute in 50 nanoseconds, this very likely
> > does need serious attention.
> >
> > Other thoughts?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> Hmm the answer to this would be I'm not sure.
> It's setup time stuff we never tested it.
Is it possible to measure it easily?
Thanx, Paul
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > > index 477b4eb44af5..067909521d72 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > > @@ -125,6 +125,25 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Helpful for rate-limiting kfree_rcu/call_rcu callbacks.
> > > + */
> > > +bool call_rcu_outstanding(void)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > > + bool outstanding;
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > > + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> > > + outstanding = rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist);
> > > + outstanding = rcu_ctrlblk.donetail != rcu_ctrlblk.curtail;
> > > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > +
> > > + return outstanding;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_outstanding);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Post an RCU callback to be invoked after the end of an RCU grace
> > > * period. But since we have but one CPU, that would be after any
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index a14e5fbbea46..d4b9d61e637d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -2482,6 +2482,24 @@ static void rcu_leak_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Helpful for rate-limiting kfree_rcu/call_rcu callbacks.
> > > + */
> > > +bool call_rcu_outstanding(void)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > > + bool outstanding;
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > > + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> > > + outstanding = rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist);
> > > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > +
> > > + return outstanding;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_outstanding);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Helper function for call_rcu() and friends. The cpu argument will
> > > * normally be -1, indicating "currently running CPU". It may specify
>
