On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:58:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 02:37:48PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:54:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:26:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 05:04:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > On 2020-04-16 23:05:15 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:34:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > On 2020-04-16 14:00:57 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We might need different calling-context restrictions for the two variants > > > > > > > > of kfree_rcu(). And we might need to come up with some sort of lockdep > > > > > > > > check for "safe to use normal spinlock in -rt". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh. We do have this already, it is called CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING. > > > > > > > This one will scream if you do > > > > > > > raw_spin_lock(); > > > > > > > spin_lock(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sadly, as of today, there is code triggering this which needs to be > > > > > > > addressed first (but it is one list of things to do). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the thread so far, is it okay if I repost the series with > > > > > > > migrate_disable() instead of accepting a possible migration before > > > > > > > grabbing the lock? I would prefer to avoid the extra RT case (avoiding > > > > > > > memory allocations in a possible atomic context) until we get there. > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer something like the following to make it possible to invoke > > > > > > kfree_rcu() from atomic context considering call_rcu() is already callable > > > > > > from such contexts. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > So it looks like it would work. However, could we please delay this > > > > > until we have an actual case on RT? I just added > > > > > WARN_ON(!preemptible()); > > > > > > > > I am not sure if waiting for it to break in the future is a good idea. I'd > > > > rather design it in a forward thinking way. There could be folks replacing > > > > "call_rcu() + kfree in a callback" with kfree_rcu() for example. If they were > > > > in !preemptible(), we'd break on page allocation. > > > > > > > > Also as a sidenote, the additional pre-allocation of pages that Vlad is > > > > planning on adding would further reduce the need for pages from the page > > > > allocator. > > > > > > > > Paul, what is your opinion on this? > > > > > > My experience with call_rcu(), of which kfree_rcu() is a specialization, > > > is that it gets invoked with preemption disabled, with interrupts > > > disabled, and during early boot, as in even before rcu_init() has been > > > invoked. This experience does make me lean towards raw spinlocks. > > > > > > But to Sebastian's point, if we are going to use raw spinlocks, we need > > > to keep the code paths holding those spinlocks as short as possible. > > > I suppose that the inability to allocate memory with raw spinlocks held > > > helps, but it is worth checking. > > > > > How about reducing the lock contention even further? > > Can we do even better by moving the work-scheduling out from under the > spinlock? This of course means that it is necessary to handle the > occasional spurious call to the work handler, but that should be rare > and should be in the noise compared to the reduction in contention. Yes I think that will be required since -rt will sleep on workqueue locks as well :-(. I'm looking into it right now. /* * If @work was previously on a different pool, it might still be * running there, in which case the work needs to be queued on that * pool to guarantee non-reentrancy. */ last_pool = get_work_pool(work); if (last_pool && last_pool != pwq->pool) { struct worker *worker; spin_lock(&last_pool->lock); Thanks! - Joel > > Thoughts? > > Thanx, Paul > > > <snip> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > index f288477ee1c2..fb916e065784 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > @@ -3053,7 +3053,8 @@ static inline void kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, > > > > // Previous RCU batch still in progress, try again later. > > krcp->monitor_todo = true; > > - schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES); > > + schedule_delayed_work_on(raw_smp_processor_id(), > > + &krcp->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags); > > } > > > > @@ -3168,7 +3169,8 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) > > if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING && > > !krcp->monitor_todo) { > > krcp->monitor_todo = true; > > - schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES); > > + schedule_delayed_work_on(raw_smp_processor_id(), > > + &krcp->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES); > > } > > > > unlock_return: > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > > index 891ccad5f271..49fcc50469f4 100644 > > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > > @@ -1723,7 +1723,9 @@ static void rcu_work_rcufn(struct rcu_head *rcu) > > > > /* read the comment in __queue_work() */ > > local_irq_disable(); > > - __queue_work(WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, rwork->wq, &rwork->work); > > + > > + /* Just for illustration. Can have queue_rcu_work_on(). */ > > + __queue_work(raw_smp_processor_id(), rwork->wq, &rwork->work); > > local_irq_enable(); > > } > > <snip> > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > Vlad Rezki