summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJoel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>2020-03-16 12:32:27 -0400
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>2020-04-27 11:02:50 -0700
commit9154244c1ab6c9db4f1f25ac8f73bd46dba64287 (patch)
treebd72579e4247c2e741a446646b88634faff633f8
parentf87dc808009ac86c790031627698ef1a34c31e25 (diff)
rcu/tree: Add a shrinker to prevent OOM due to kfree_rcu() batching
To reduce grace periods and improve kfree() performance, we have done batching recently dramatically bringing down the number of grace periods while giving us the ability to use kfree_bulk() for efficient kfree'ing. However, this has increased the likelihood of OOM condition under heavy kfree_rcu() flood on small memory systems. This patch introduces a shrinker which starts grace periods right away if the system is under memory pressure due to existence of objects that have still not started a grace period. With this patch, I do not observe an OOM anymore on a system with 512MB RAM and 8 CPUs, with the following rcuperf options: rcuperf.kfree_loops=20000 rcuperf.kfree_alloc_num=8000 rcuperf.kfree_rcu_test=1 rcuperf.kfree_mult=2 Otherwise it easily OOMs with the above parameters. NOTE: 1. On systems with no memory pressure, the patch has no effect as intended. 2. In the future, we can use this same mechanism to prevent grace periods from happening even more, by relying on shrinkers carefully. Cc: urezki@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
-rw-r--r--kernel/rcu/tree.c60
1 files changed, 60 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 156ac8d0418b..e299cd0ddd97 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2824,6 +2824,8 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu {
struct delayed_work monitor_work;
bool monitor_todo;
bool initialized;
+ // Number of objects for which GP not started
+ int count;
};
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kfree_rcu_cpu, krc);
@@ -2937,6 +2939,8 @@ static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
krcp->head = NULL;
}
+ krcp->count = 0;
+
/*
* One work is per one batch, so there are two "free channels",
* "bhead_free" and "head_free" the batch can handle. It can be
@@ -3073,6 +3077,8 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
krcp->head = head;
}
+ krcp->count++;
+
// Set timer to drain after KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES.
if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
!krcp->monitor_todo) {
@@ -3087,6 +3093,58 @@ unlock_return:
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu);
+static unsigned long
+kfree_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+ int cpu;
+ unsigned long flags, count = 0;
+
+ /* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
+ count += krcp->count;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
+ }
+
+ return count;
+}
+
+static unsigned long
+kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+ int cpu, freed = 0;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ int count;
+ struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
+
+ count = krcp->count;
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
+ if (krcp->monitor_todo)
+ kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(krcp, flags);
+ else
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
+
+ sc->nr_to_scan -= count;
+ freed += count;
+
+ if (sc->nr_to_scan <= 0)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return freed;
+}
+
+static struct shrinker kfree_rcu_shrinker = {
+ .count_objects = kfree_rcu_shrink_count,
+ .scan_objects = kfree_rcu_shrink_scan,
+ .batch = 0,
+ .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
+};
+
void __init kfree_rcu_scheduler_running(void)
{
int cpu;
@@ -4007,6 +4065,8 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init(void)
INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&krcp->monitor_work, kfree_rcu_monitor);
krcp->initialized = true;
}
+ if (register_shrinker(&kfree_rcu_shrinker))
+ pr_err("Failed to register kfree_rcu() shrinker!\n");
}
void __init rcu_init(void)