On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:00:55AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang wrote:
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > 发件人: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 代表 Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 发送时间: 2020年8月19日 8:04
> > 收件人: Paul E. McKenney
> > 抄送: Uladzislau Rezki; Zhang, Qiang; Josh Triplett; Steven Rostedt; Mathieu Desnoyers; Lai Jiangshan; rcu; LKML
> > 主题: Re: [PATCH] rcu: shrink each possible cpu krcp
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:02 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index b8ccd7b5af82..6decb9ad2421 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -2336,10 +2336,15 @@ int rcutree_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > > > struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode; /* Outgoing CPU's rdp & rnp. */
> > > > + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> > > >
> > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > + /* Drain the kcrp of this CPU. IRQs should be disabled? */
> > > > + krcp = this_cpu_ptr(&krc)
> > > > + schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, 0);
> > > > +
> > > >
> > > > A cpu can be offlined and its krp will be stuck until a shrinker is involved.
> > > > Maybe be never.
> > >
> > > Does the same apply to its kmalloc() per-CPU caches? If so, I have a
> > > hard time getting too worried about it. ;-)
> >
> > >Looking at slab_offline_cpu() , that calls cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> > >on the cache reaper who's job is to flush the per-cpu caches. So I
> > >believe during CPU offlining, the per-cpu slab caches are flushed.
> > >
> > >thanks,
> > >
> > >- Joel
> >
> > When cpu going offline, the slub or slab only flush free objects in offline
> > cpu cache, put these free objects in node list or return buddy system,
> > for those who are still in use, they still stay offline cpu cache.
> >
> > If we want clean per-cpu "krcp" objects when cpu going offline. we should
> > free "krcp" cache objects in "rcutree_offline_cpu", this func be called
> > before other rcu cpu offline func. and then "rcutree_offline_cpu" will be
> > called in "cpuhp/%u" per-cpu thread.
> >
>
> Could you please wrap text properly when you post to mailing list, thanks. I
> fixed it for you above.
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 8ce77d9ac716..1812d4a1ac1b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3959,6 +3959,7 @@ int rcutree_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > unsigned long flags;
> > struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> >
> > rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > @@ -3970,6 +3971,11 @@ int rcutree_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > // nohz_full CPUs need the tick for stop-machine to work quickly
> > tick_dep_set(TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
> > +
> > + krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
> > + schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, 0);
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
> > return 0;
>
> I realized the above is not good enough for what this is trying to do. Unlike
> the slab, the new kfree_rcu objects cannot always be drained / submitted to
> RCU because the previous batch may still be waiting for a grace period. So
> the above code could very well return with the yet-to-be-submitted kfree_rcu
> objects still in the cache.
>
> One option is to spin-wait here for monitor_todo to be false and keep calling
> kfree_rcu_drain_unlock() till then.
>
> But then that's not good enough either, because if new objects are queued
> when interrupts are enabled in the CPU offline path, then the cache will get
> new objects after the previous set was drained. Further, spin waiting may
> introduce deadlocks.
>
> Another option is to switch the kfree_rcu() path to non-batching (so new
> objects cannot be cached in the offline path and are submitted directly to
> RCU), wait for a GP and then submit the work. But then not sure if 1-argument
> kfree_rcu() will like that.
Or spawn a workqueue that does something like this:
1. Get any pending kvfree_rcu() requests sent off to RCU.
2. Do an rcu_barrier().
3. Do the cleanup actions.
> Probably Qian's original fix for for_each_possible_cpus() is good enough for
> the shrinker case, and then we can tackle the hotplug one.
It might take some experimentation to find the best solution.
Thanx, Paul
