On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:24:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:20:37AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 08:38:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:42:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:52:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > @@ -3459,6 +3645,8 @@ void __init rcu_init(void) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > int cpu; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + kfree_rcu_batch_init(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens if someone does a kfree_rcu() before this point? It > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > like it should work, but have you tested it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rcu_early_boot_tests(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, by testing it in rcu_early_boot_tests() and moving > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > call to kfree_rcu_batch_init() here. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not tried to do the kfree_rcu() this early. I will try it > > > > > > out. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, call_rcu() this early came as a surprise to me back in the > > > > > day, so... ;-) > > > > > > > > I actually did get surprised as well! > > > > > > > > It appears the timers are not fully initialized so the really early > > > > kfree_rcu() call from rcu_init() does cause a splat about an initialized > > > > timer spinlock (even though future kfree_rcu()s and the system are > > > > working > > > > fine all the way into the torture tests). > > > > > > > > I think to resolve this, we can just not do batching until > > > > early_initcall, > > > > during which I have an initialization function which switches batching > > > > on. > > > > >From that point it is safe. > > > > > > Just go ahead and batch, but don't bother with the timer until > > > after single-threaded boot is done. For example, you could check > > > rcu_scheduler_active similar to how sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() does. > > > (See kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h.) > > > > Cool, that works nicely and I tested it. Actually I made it such that we > > don't need to batch even, before the scheduler is up. I don't see any > > benefit > > of that unless we can see a kfree_rcu() flood happening that early at boot > > which seems highly doubtful as a real world case. > > The benefit is removing the kfree_rcu() special cases from the innards > of RCU, for example, in rcu_do_batch(). Another benefit is removing the > current restriction on the position of the rcu_head structure within the > enclosing data structure. > > So it would be good to avoid the current kfree_rcu() special casing within > RCU itself. > > Or are you using some trick that avoids both the batching and the current > kfree_rcu() special casing?
Oh. I see what you mean. Would it be Ok with you to have that be a follow up patch? I am not getting rid (yet) of the special casing in rcu_do_batch in this patch, but can do that in another patch. For now I am just doing something like the following in kfree_call_rcu(). I was almost about to hit send on the v1 and I have been testing this a lot so I'll post it anyway; and we can discuss more about this point on that. +void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) +{ + unsigned long flags; + struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp; + bool monitor_todo; + + /* kfree_call_rcu() batching requires timers to be up. If the scheduler + * is not yet up, just skip batching and do non-batched kfree_call_rcu(). + */ + if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING) + return kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(head, func); + thanks, - Joel