Re: [PATCH] mm: add cond_resched() to free_pud_range()

On Tue 18-08-26 21:49:34, Leon Hwang wrote:
> Packet receive timeouts were seen in production. Tracing showed that an
> exiting process with a sparse 2.5 TiB mapping could remain in kernel
> context for over 20 ms without reaching a scheduling point while
> freeing PTE page-table pages. Hard IRQs could still be handled, but the
> per-CPU ksoftirqd thread and other runnable tasks could not run during
> that interval, delaying NET_RX softirq work queued to ksoftirqd.
> 
> Like zap_pud_range(), add cond_resched() to free_pud_range() so
> ksoftirqd and other runnable tasks can run between PUD entries. Testing
> with PREEMPT_NONE showed that the maximum interval between scheduling
> points fell from over 20 ms to below 2 ms.

PREEMPT_NONE is effectivelly dead and most cond_resched will/should be
removed. Is there any reason why you are not using full preemption when
requiring low latencies?

> Reported-by: Lance Yang <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Lance Yang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 4134ac607ee0..68c15449de07 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static inline void free_pud_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, p4d_t *p4d,
>  		if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(pud))
>  			continue;
>  		free_pmd_range(tlb, pud, addr, next, floor, ceiling);
> -	} while (pud++, addr = next, addr != end);
> +	} while (pud++, cond_resched(), addr = next, addr != end);
>  
>  	start &= P4D_MASK;
>  	if (start < floor)
> -- 
> 2.55.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs