From 084e04fff1601787a121c225502716b8c0314433 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 16:22:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] rcuscale: Add laziness and kfree tests This commit adds 2 tests to rcuscale. The first one is a startup test to check whether we are not too lazy or too hard working. The second one causes kfree_rcu() itself to use call_rcu() and checks memory pressure. Testing indicates that the new call_rcu() keeps memory pressure under control roughly as well as does kfree_rcu(). [ paulmck: Apply checkpatch feedback. ] Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c index 3ef02d4a8108..3baded807a61 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ torture_param(int, verbose, 1, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s"); torture_param(int, writer_holdoff, 0, "Holdoff (us) between GPs, zero to disable"); torture_param(int, kfree_rcu_test, 0, "Do we run a kfree_rcu() scale test?"); torture_param(int, kfree_mult, 1, "Multiple of kfree_obj size to allocate."); +torture_param(int, kfree_by_call_rcu, 0, "Use call_rcu() to emulate kfree_rcu()?"); static char *scale_type = "rcu"; module_param(scale_type, charp, 0444); @@ -659,6 +660,14 @@ struct kfree_obj { struct rcu_head rh; }; +/* Used if doing RCU-kfree'ing via call_rcu(). */ +static void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *rh) +{ + struct kfree_obj *obj = container_of(rh, struct kfree_obj, rh); + + kfree(obj); +} + static int kfree_scale_thread(void *arg) { @@ -696,6 +705,11 @@ kfree_scale_thread(void *arg) if (!alloc_ptr) return -ENOMEM; + if (kfree_by_call_rcu) { + call_rcu(&(alloc_ptr->rh), kfree_call_rcu); + continue; + } + // By default kfree_rcu_test_single and kfree_rcu_test_double are // initialized to false. If both have the same value (false or true) // both are randomly tested, otherwise only the one with value true @@ -767,11 +781,58 @@ kfree_scale_shutdown(void *arg) return -EINVAL; } +// Used if doing RCU-kfree'ing via call_rcu(). +static unsigned long jiffies_at_lazy_cb; +static struct rcu_head lazy_test1_rh; +static int rcu_lazy_test1_cb_called; +static void call_rcu_lazy_test1(struct rcu_head *rh) +{ + jiffies_at_lazy_cb = jiffies; + WRITE_ONCE(rcu_lazy_test1_cb_called, 1); +} + static int __init kfree_scale_init(void) { - long i; int firsterr = 0; + long i; + unsigned long jif_start; + unsigned long orig_jif; + + // Also, do a quick self-test to ensure laziness is as much as + // expected. + if (kfree_by_call_rcu && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY)) { + pr_alert("CONFIG_RCU_LAZY is disabled, falling back to kfree_rcu() for delayed RCU kfree'ing\n"); + kfree_by_call_rcu = 0; + } + + if (kfree_by_call_rcu) { + /* do a test to check the timeout. */ + orig_jif = rcu_lazy_get_jiffies_till_flush(); + + rcu_lazy_set_jiffies_till_flush(2 * HZ); + rcu_barrier(); + + jif_start = jiffies; + jiffies_at_lazy_cb = 0; + call_rcu(&lazy_test1_rh, call_rcu_lazy_test1); + + smp_cond_load_relaxed(&rcu_lazy_test1_cb_called, VAL == 1); + + rcu_lazy_set_jiffies_till_flush(orig_jif); + + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(jiffies_at_lazy_cb - jif_start < 2 * HZ)) { + pr_alert("ERROR: call_rcu() CBs are not being lazy as expected!\n"); + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + return -1; + } + + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(jiffies_at_lazy_cb - jif_start > 3 * HZ)) { + pr_alert("ERROR: call_rcu() CBs are being too lazy!\n"); + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + return -1; + } + } kfree_nrealthreads = compute_real(kfree_nthreads); /* Start up the kthreads. */ @@ -784,7 +845,9 @@ kfree_scale_init(void) schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); } - pr_alert("kfree object size=%zu\n", kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj)); + pr_alert("kfree object size=%zu, kfree_by_call_rcu=%d\n", + kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj), + kfree_by_call_rcu); kfree_reader_tasks = kcalloc(kfree_nrealthreads, sizeof(kfree_reader_tasks[0]), GFP_KERNEL);