lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 8/8] rcu/kfree: Fix kfree_rcu_shrink_count() return value
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:56:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 05:13:21PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:56 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 02:43:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:18:13PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:59:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 08:56:43PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > > > As per the comments in include/linux/shrinker.h, .count_objects callback
> > > > > > > > should return the number of freeable items, but if there are no objects
> > > > > > > > to free, SHRINK_EMPTY should be returned. The only time 0 is returned
> > > > > > > > should be when we are unable to determine the number of objects, or the
> > > > > > > > cache should be skipped for another reason.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > > index 711679d10cbb..935788e8d2d7 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -3722,7 +3722,7 @@ kfree_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > > > > > > atomic_set(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill, 1);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - return count;
> > > > > > > > + return count == 0 ? SHRINK_EMPTY : count;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static unsigned long
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks good to me!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that you mention it, this does look independent of the rest of
> > > > > > the series. I have pulled it in with Uladzislau's Reviewed-by.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Paul and Vlad!
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, apologies for being quiet. I have been working on the series and the
> > > > > review comments carefully. I appreciate your help with this work.
> > > >
> > > > Not a problem. After all, this stuff is changing some of the trickier
> > > > parts of RCU. We must therefore assume that some significant time and
> > > > effort will be required to get it right.
> > >
> > > To your point about trickier parts of RCU, the v2 series though I tested it
> > > before submitting is now giving me strange results with rcuscale. Sometimes
> > > laziness does not seem to be in effect (as pointed out by rcuscale), other
> > > times I am seeing stalls.
> > >
> > > So I have to carefully look through all of this again. I am not sure why I
> > > was not seeing these issues with the exact same code before (frustrated).
> >
> > Looks like I found at least 3 bugs in my v2 series which testing
> > picked up now. RCU-lazy was being too lazy or not too lazy. Now tests
> > pass, so its progress but does beg for more testing:
>
> It is entirely possible that call_rcu_lazy() needs its own special
> purpose tests. This might be a separate test parallel to the test for
> kfree_rcu() in kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c, for example.

I see, perhaps I can add a 'lazy' flag to rcutorture as well, so it uses
call_rcu_lazy() for its async RCU invocations?

> For but one example, you might need to do bunch of call_rcu_lazy()
> invocations, then keep the kernel completely quiet for long enough to
> let the timer fire, and without anything else happening.

Yes, I sort of do that in rcuscale. There is a flood of call_rcu_lazy() due
to the FS code doing it. And, the timer does fire at the right time. I then
measure the time to make sure the timing matches, that's how I found the bugs
I earlier mentioned.

You had mentioned something like for testing earlier, I thought of trying it
out:

It also helps to make rcutorture help you out if you have not
already done so. For example, providing some facility to allow
rcu_torture_fwd_prog_cr() to flood with call_rcu_lazy() instead of and
in addition to call_rcu().


thanks,

- Joel


>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > On top of v2 series:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > index c06a96b6a18a..7021ee05155d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > @@ -292,7 +292,8 @@ static void wake_nocb_gp_defer(struct rcu_data
> > *rdp, int waketype,
> > */
> > switch (waketype) {
> > case RCU_NOCB_WAKE_LAZY:
> > - mod_jif = jiffies_till_flush;
> > + if (rdp->nocb_defer_wakeup != RCU_NOCB_WAKE_LAZY)
> > + mod_jif = jiffies_till_flush;
> > break;
> >
> > case RCU_NOCB_WAKE_BYPASS:
> > @@ -714,13 +715,13 @@ static void nocb_gp_wait(struct rcu_data *my_rdp)
> > bypass_ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
> > lazy_ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_lazy_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
> > if (lazy_ncbs &&
> > - (time_after(j, READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first) +
> > LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES) ||
> > + (time_after(j, READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first) +
> > jiffies_till_flush) ||
> > bypass_ncbs > qhimark)) {
> > // Bypass full or old, so flush it.
> > (void)rcu_nocb_try_flush_bypass(rdp, j);
> > bypass_ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
> > lazy_ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_lazy_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
> > - } else if (bypass_ncbs &&
> > + } else if (bypass_ncbs && (lazy_ncbs != bypass_ncbs) &&
> > (time_after(j, READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first) + 1) ||
> > bypass_ncbs > 2 * qhimark)) {
> > // Bypass full or old, so flush it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-29 21:50    [W:0.289 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site