>>On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 06:37:53AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:12:38AM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > Currently, in kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(), the drain_page_cache() is
> > executed before kfree_rcu_monitor() to drain page cache, if the bnode
> > structure's->gp_snap has done, the kvfree_rcu_bulk() will fill the
> > page cache again in kfree_rcu_monitor(), this commit add a check
> > for krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill in put_cached_bnode(),
> > if the krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill is set, prevent page
> > cache growing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 9cc0a7766fd2..f25430ae1936 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2907,6 +2907,8 @@ static inline bool
> > put_cached_bnode(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> > struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode)
> > {
> > + if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill))
> > + return false;
> > // Check the limit.
> > if (krcp->nr_bkv_objs >= rcu_min_cached_objs)
> > return false;
> > --
> > 2.32.0
> >
> Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Thank you both!
>
>One question, though. Might it be better to instead modify the "for"
>loop in fill_page_cache_func() to start at krcp->nr_bkv_objs instead
>of starting at zero? That way, we still provide a single page under
>low-memory conditions, but provide rcu_min_cached_objs of them if memory
>is plentiful.
>
>Alternatively, if we really don't want to allow any pages at all under
>low-memory conditions, shouldn't the fill_page_cache_func() set nr_pages
>to zero (instead of the current 1) when the krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill
>flag is set?
Hi, Paul
If the krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill is true, the put_cached_bnode () return false,
the allocated single page will also be freed in fill_page_cache_func().
or it would be better not to allocate under memory pressure.
How about like this?
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 9cc0a7766fd2..94aedbc3da36 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2907,6 +2907,8 @@ static inline bool
put_cached_bnode(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode)
{
+ if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill))
+ return false;
// Check the limit.
if (krcp->nr_bkv_objs >= rcu_min_cached_objs)
return false;
@@ -3220,7 +3222,7 @@ static void fill_page_cache_func(struct work_struct *work)
int i;
nr_pages = atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill) ?
- 1 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
+ 0 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
bnode = (struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *)
Thanks
Zqiang
>This would likely mean also breaking out of that loop if
>krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill was set in the meantime (which happens
>implicitly with Zqiang's patch).
>
>Or am I missing something subtle here?
>
> Thanx, Paul
