On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > >>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 08:20:50 -0700 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/5/20 8:07 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> [...] > >> > >> I would ask Paul opinion on this issue, because we have many objects > >> being freed after RCU grace periods. > >> > >> If RCU subsystem can not keep-up, I guess other workloads will also suffer. > >> > >> Sure, we can revert patches there and there trying to work around the issue, > >> but for objects allocated from process context, we should not have these problems. > >> > > > > I wonder if simply adjusting rcu_divisor to 6 or 5 would help > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > index d9a49cd6065a20936edbda1b334136ab597cde52..fde833bac0f9f81e8536211b4dad6e7575c1219a 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > @@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ module_param(qovld, long, 0444); > > static ulong jiffies_till_first_fqs = ULONG_MAX; > > static ulong jiffies_till_next_fqs = ULONG_MAX; > > static bool rcu_kick_kthreads; > > -static int rcu_divisor = 7; > > +static int rcu_divisor = 6; > > module_param(rcu_divisor, int, 0644); > > > > /* Force an exit from rcu_do_batch() after 3 milliseconds. */ > > > > To be clear, you can adjust the value without building a new kernel. > > echo 6 >/sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_divisor > I tried value 6, 5, and 4, but none of those removed the problem. Thanks, SeongJae Park
