On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/19/25 08:47, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:09:34AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 9/17/25 16:14, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> > On 9/17/25 15:34, Harry Yoo wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:21:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> >>> On 9/17/25 15:07, Harry Yoo wrote:
> >> >>> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 02:05:49PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> >>> >> On 9/17/25 13:32, Harry Yoo wrote:
> >> >>> >> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:55:10AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> On 9/17/25 10:30, Harry Yoo wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka
> >> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> + sfw->skip = true;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + continue;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + }
> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> >> + INIT_WORK(&sfw->work, flush_rcu_sheaf);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + sfw->skip = false;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + sfw->s = s;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + queue_work_on(cpu, flushwq, &sfw->work);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + flushed = true;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + }
> >> >>> >> >> >> +
> >> >>> >> >> >> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >> >>> >> >> >> + sfw = &per_cpu(slub_flush, cpu);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + if (sfw->skip)
> >> >>> >> >> >> + continue;
> >> >>> >> >> >> + flush_work(&sfw->work);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + }
> >> >>> >> >> >> +
> >> >>> >> >> >> + mutex_unlock(&flush_lock);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + }
> >> >>> >> >> >> +
> >> >>> >> >> >> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> >> >>> >> >> >> + cpus_read_unlock();
> >> >>> >> >> >> +
> >> >>> >> >> >> + if (flushed)
> >> >>> >> >> >> + rcu_barrier();
> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> > I think we need to call rcu_barrier() even if flushed == false?
> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> > Maybe a kvfree_rcu()'d object was already waiting for the rcu
> >> >>> >> >> > callback to
> >> >>> >> >> > be processed before flush_all_rcu_sheaves() is called, and
> >> >>> >> >> > in flush_all_rcu_sheaves() we skipped all (cache, cpu) pairs,
> >> >>> >> >> > so flushed == false but the rcu callback isn't processed yet
> >> >>> >> >> > by the end of the function?
> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> > That sounds like a very unlikely to happen in a realistic
> >> >>> >> >> > scenario,
> >> >>> >> >> > but still possible...
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Yes also good point, will flush unconditionally.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Maybe in __kfree_rcu_sheaf() I should also move the
> >> >>> >> >> call_rcu(...) before
> >> >>> >> >> local_unlock().
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> So we don't end up seeing a NULL pcs->rcu_free in
> >> >>> >> >> flush_all_rcu_sheaves() because __kfree_rcu_sheaf() already set
> >> >>> >> >> it to NULL,
> >> >>> >> >> but didn't yet do the call_rcu() as it got preempted after
> >> >>> >> >> local_unlock().
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > Makes sense to me.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Wait, I'm confused.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I think the caller of kvfree_rcu_barrier() should make sure that
> >> >>> > it's invoked
> >> >>> > only after a kvfree_rcu(X, rhs) call has returned, if the caller
> >> >>> > expects
> >> >>> > the object X to be freed before kvfree_rcu_barrier() returns?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hmm, the caller of kvfree_rcu(X, rhs) might have returned without
> >> >>> filling up
> >> >>> the rcu_sheaf fully and thus without submitting it to call_rcu(), then
> >> >>> migrated to another cpu. Then it calls kvfree_rcu_barrier() while
> >> >>> another
> >> >>> unrelated kvfree_rcu(X, rhs) call on the previous cpu is for the same
> >> >>> kmem_cache (kvfree_rcu_barrier() is not only for cache destruction),
> >> >>> fills
> >> >>> up the rcu_sheaf fully and is about to call_rcu() on it. And since that
> >> >>> sheaf also contains the object X, we should make sure that is flushed.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was going to say "but we queue and wait for the flushing work to
> >> >> complete, so the sheaf containing object X should be flushed?"
> >> >>
> >> >> But nah, that's true only if we see pcs->rcu_free != NULL in
> >> >> flush_all_rcu_sheaves().
> >> >>
> >> >> You are right...
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm, maybe it's simpler to fix this by never skipping queueing the work
> >> >> even when pcs->rcu_sheaf == NULL?
> >> >
> >> > I guess it's simpler, yeah.
> >>
> >> So what about this? The unconditional queueing should cover all races with
> >> __kfree_rcu_sheaf() so there's just unconditional rcu_barrier() in the end.
> >>
> >> From 0722b29fa1625b31c05d659d1d988ec882247b38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz>
> >> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:59:46 +0200
> >> Subject: [PATCH] slab: add sheaf support for batching kfree_rcu()
> >> operations
> >>
> >> Extend the sheaf infrastructure for more efficient kfree_rcu() handling.
> >> For caches with sheaves, on each cpu maintain a rcu_free sheaf in
> >> addition to main and spare sheaves.
> >>
> >> kfree_rcu() operations will try to put objects on this sheaf. Once full,
> >> the sheaf is detached and submitted to call_rcu() with a handler that
> >> will try to put it in the barn, or flush to slab pages using bulk free,
> >> when the barn is full. Then a new empty sheaf must be obtained to put
> >> more objects there.
> >>
> >> It's possible that no free sheaves are available to use for a new
> >> rcu_free sheaf, and the allocation in kfree_rcu() context can only use
> >> GFP_NOWAIT and thus may fail. In that case, fall back to the existing
> >> kfree_rcu() implementation.
> >>
> >> Expected advantages:
> >> - batching the kfree_rcu() operations, that could eventually replace the
> >> existing batching
> >> - sheaves can be reused for allocations via barn instead of being
> >> flushed to slabs, which is more efficient
> >> - this includes cases where only some cpus are allowed to process rcu
> >> callbacks (Android)
> >>
> >> Possible disadvantage:
> >> - objects might be waiting for more than their grace period (it is
> >> determined by the last object freed into the sheaf), increasing memory
> >> usage - but the existing batching does that too.
> >>
> >> Only implement this for CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED as the tiny
> >> implementation favors smaller memory footprint over performance.
> >>
> >> Also for now skip the usage of rcu sheaf for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT as the
> >> contexts where kfree_rcu() is called might not be compatible with taking
> >> a barn spinlock or a GFP_NOWAIT allocation of a new sheaf taking a
> >> spinlock - the current kfree_rcu() implementation avoids doing that.
> >>
> >> Teach kvfree_rcu_barrier() to flush all rcu_free sheaves from all caches
> >> that have them. This is not a cheap operation, but the barrier usage is
> >> rare - currently kmem_cache_destroy() or on module unload.
> >>
> >> Add CONFIG_SLUB_STATS counters free_rcu_sheaf and free_rcu_sheaf_fail to
> >> count how many kfree_rcu() used the rcu_free sheaf successfully and how
> >> many had to fall back to the existing implementation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz>
> >> ---
> >
> > Looks good to me,
> > Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry....@oracle.com>
>
> Thanks.
>
> >> +do_free:
> >> +
> >> + rcu_sheaf = pcs->rcu_free;
> >> +
> >> + rcu_sheaf->objects[rcu_sheaf->size++] = obj;
> >> +
> >> + if (likely(rcu_sheaf->size < s->sheaf_capacity))
> >> + rcu_sheaf = NULL;
> >> + else
> >> + pcs->rcu_free = NULL;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * we flush before local_unlock to make sure a racing
> >> + * flush_all_rcu_sheaves() doesn't miss this sheaf
> >> + */
> >> + if (rcu_sheaf)
> >> + call_rcu(&rcu_sheaf->rcu_head, rcu_free_sheaf);
> >
> > nit: now we don't have to put this inside local_lock()~local_unlock()?
>
> I think we still need to? AFAICS I wrote before is still true:
>
> The caller of kvfree_rcu(X, rhs) might have returned without filling up
> the rcu_sheaf fully and thus without submitting it to call_rcu(), then
> migrated to another cpu. Then it calls kvfree_rcu_barrier() while another
> unrelated kvfree_rcu(X, rhs) call on the previous cpu is for the same
> kmem_cache (kvfree_rcu_barrier() is not only for cache destruction), fills
> up the rcu_sheaf fully and is about to call_rcu() on it.
>
> If it can local_unlock() before doing the call_rcu(), it can local_unlock(),
> get preempted, and our flush worqueue handler will only see there's no
> rcu_free sheaf and do nothing.
Oops, you're right. So even if a previous kvfree_rcu() has returned
and then kvfree_rcu_barrier() is called, a later kvfree_rcu() call can
make the sheaf invisible to the flush workqueue handler if it calls
call_rcu() outside the critical section because it can be preempted by
the workqueue handler after local_unlock() but before calling
call_rcu().
> If if must call_rcu() before local_unlock(), our flush workqueue handler
> will not execute on the cpu until it performs the call_rcu() and
> local_unlock(), because it can't preempt that section (!RT) or will have to
> wait doing local_lock() in flush_rcu_sheaf() (RT) - here it's important it
> takes the lock unconditionally.
Right.
My nit was wrong and it looks good to me then!
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
