On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:25:25PM +0000, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 16:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:08:53AM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
> > > With CONFIG_MAXSMP and CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, the size of an srcu_struct can
> > > grow quite large. In one compilation instance it produced a 74KiB data
> > > structure. These are embedded in the vmd_irq_list struct, and a N=64 allocation
> > > can exceed MAX_ORDER, violating reclaim rules.
> > >
> > > struct srcu_struct {
> > > struct srcu_node node[521]; /* 0 75024 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1172 boundary (75008 bytes) was 16 bytes ago --- */
> > > struct srcu_node * level[4]; /* 75024 32 */
> > > struct mutex srcu_cb_mutex; /* 75056 128 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1174 boundary (75136 bytes) was 48 bytes ago --- */
> > > spinlock_t lock; /* 75184 56 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1175 boundary (75200 bytes) was 40 bytes ago --- */
> > > struct mutex srcu_gp_mutex; /* 75240 128 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1177 boundary (75328 bytes) was 40 bytes ago --- */
> > > unsigned int srcu_idx; /* 75368 4 */
> > >
> > > /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
> > >
> > > long unsigned int srcu_gp_seq; /* 75376 8 */
> > > long unsigned int srcu_gp_seq_needed; /* 75384 8 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1178 boundary (75392 bytes) --- */
> > > long unsigned int srcu_gp_seq_needed_exp; /* 75392 8 */
> > > long unsigned int srcu_last_gp_end; /* 75400 8 */
> > > struct srcu_data * sda; /* 75408 8 */
> > > long unsigned int srcu_barrier_seq; /* 75416 8 */
> > > struct mutex srcu_barrier_mutex; /* 75424 128 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1180 boundary (75520 bytes) was 32 bytes ago --- */
> > > struct completion srcu_barrier_completion; /* 75552 80 */
> > > /* --- cacheline 1181 boundary (75584 bytes) was 48 bytes ago --- */
> > > atomic_t srcu_barrier_cpu_cnt; /* 75632 4 */
> > >
> > > /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
> > >
> > > struct delayed_work work; /* 75640 152 */
> > >
> > > /* XXX last struct has 4 bytes of padding */
> > >
> > > /* --- cacheline 1184 boundary (75776 bytes) was 16 bytes ago --- */
> > > struct lockdep_map dep_map; /* 75792 32 */
> > >
> > > /* size: 75824, cachelines: 1185, members: 17 */
> > > /* sum members: 75816, holes: 2, sum holes: 8 */
> > > /* paddings: 1, sum paddings: 4 */
> > > /* last cacheline: 48 bytes */
> > > };
> > >
> > > With N=64 VMD IRQ lists, this would allocate 4.6MiB in a single call. This
> > > violates MAX_ORDER reclaim rules when PAGE_SIZE=4096 and
> > > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES=1024, and invokes the following warning in mm/page_alloc.c:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * There are several places where we assume that the order value is sane
> > > * so bail out early if the request is out of bound.
> > > */
> > > if (unlikely(order >= MAX_ORDER)) {
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > This patch changes the irq list array into an array of pointers to irq
> > > lists to avoid allocation failures with greater msix counts.
> > >
> > > This patch also reverts commit b31822277abcd7c83d1c1c0af876da9ccdf3b7d6.
> > > The index_from_irqs() helper was added to calculate the irq list index
> > > from the array of irqs, in order to shrink vmd_irq_list for performance.
> > >
> > > Due to the embedded srcu_struct within the vmd_irq_list struct having a
> > > varying size depending on a number of factors, the vmd_irq_list struct
> > > no longer guarantees optimal data structure size and granularity.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Added Paul to make him aware of srcu_struct size with these options
> >
> > There was some discussion of making the srcu_struct structure's ->node[]
> > array be separately allocated, which would allow this array to be
> > rightsize for the system in question. However, I believe they ended up
> > instead separately allocating the srcu_struct structure itself.
> >
> > Without doing something like that, I am kind of stuck. After all,
> > at compile time, the kernel build system tells SRCU that it needs to
> > be prepared to run on systems with thousands of CPUs. Which requires
> > substantial memory to keep track of all those CPUs. Which are not
> > present on most systems.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
> Yes I haven't seen an elegant solution other than making users aware
> of the situation.
>
> Thanks for your input
Jon, Paul,
I don't know if there was any further development in this area in the
meantime, should we proceed with this patch ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
