[PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area_free

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:52 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 19-01-23 10:52:03, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:34, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > call_rcu() can take a long time when callback offloading is enabled.
> > > > Its use in the vm_area_free can cause regressions in the exit path when
> > > > multiple VMAs are being freed. To minimize that impact, place VMAs into
> > > > a list and free them in groups using one call_rcu() call per group.
> > >
> > > After some more clarification I can understand how call_rcu might not be
> > > super happy about thousands of callbacks to be invoked and I do agree
> > > that this is not really optimal.
> > >
> > > On the other hand I do not like this solution much either.
> > > VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX is arbitrary and it won't really help all that
> > > much with processes with a huge number of vmas either. It would still be
> > > in housands of callbacks to be scheduled without a good reason.
> > >
> > > Instead, are there any other cases than remove_vma that need this
> > > batching? We could easily just link all the vmas into linked list and
> > > use a single call_rcu instead, no? This would both simplify the
> > > implementation, remove the scaling issue as well and we do not have to
> > > argue whether VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX should be epsilon or epsilon + 1.
> >
> > Yes, I agree the solution is not stellar. I wanted something simple
> > but this is probably too simple. OTOH keeping all dead vm_area_structs
> > on the list without hooking up a shrinker (additional complexity) does
> > not sound too appealing either.
>
> I suspect you have missed my idea. I do not really want to keep the list
> around or any shrinker. It is dead simple. Collect all vmas in
> remove_vma and then call_rcu the whole list at once after the whole list
> (be it from exit_mmap or remove_mt). See?

Yes, I understood your idea but keeping dead objects until the process
exits even when the system is low on memory (no shrinkers attached)
seems too wasteful. If we do this I would advocate for attaching a
shrinker.

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs