kernel/linux.git/lib/percpu_counter.c, branch v6.19.11

lib/percpu_counter: add missing __percpu qualifier to a cast

2024-09-02T03:43:34+00:00

Add missing __percpu qualifier to a (void *) cast to fix percpu_counter.c:212:36: warning: cast removes address space '__percpu' of expression percpu_counter.c:212:33: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces) percpu_counter.c:212:33: expected signed int [noderef] [usertype] __percpu *counters percpu_counter.c:212:33: got void * sparse warnings. Found by GCC's named address space checks. There were no changes in the resulting object file. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240814064437.940162-1-ubizjak@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak Cc: Dennis Zhou Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Christoph Lameter Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

percpu_counter: add a cmpxchg-based _add_batch variant

2024-06-25T05:25:03+00:00

Interrupt disable/enable trips are quite expensive on x86-64 compared to a mere cmpxchg (note: no lock prefix!) and percpu counters are used quite often. With this change I get a bump of 1% ops/s for negative path lookups, plugged into will-it-scale: void testcase(unsigned long long *iterations, unsigned long nr) { while (1) { int fd = open("/tmp/nonexistent", O_RDONLY); assert(fd == -1); (*iterations)++; } } The win would be higher if it was not for other slowdowns, but one has to start somewhere. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240528204257.434817-1-mjguzik@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka Acked-by: Dennis Zhou Cc: Hugh Dickins Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Vlastimil Babka Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

percpu_counter: extend _limited_add() to negative amounts

2023-10-18T21:34:14+00:00

Though tmpfs does not need it, percpu_counter_limited_add() can be twice as useful if it works sensibly with negative amounts (subs) - typically decrements towards a limit of 0 or nearby: as suggested by Dave Chinner. And in the course of that reworking, skip the percpu counter sum if it is already obvious that the limit would be passed: as suggested by Tim Chen. Extend the comment above __percpu_counter_limited_add(), defining the behaviour with positive and negative amounts, allowing negative limits, but not bothering about overflow beyond S64_MAX. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/8f86083b-c452-95d4-365b-f16a2e4ebcd4@google.com Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins Cc: Axel Rasmussen Cc: Carlos Maiolino Cc: Christian Brauner Cc: Chuck Lever Cc: Darrick J. Wong Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Jan Kara Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Tim Chen Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)

2023-10-18T21:34:14+00:00

Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add. I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed. Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it. I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with 128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum across CPUs still has to be done, while locked. Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and __percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Cc: Tim Chen Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Darrick J. Wong Cc: Axel Rasmussen Cc: Carlos Maiolino Cc: Christian Brauner Cc: Chuck Lever Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

pcpcntr: add group allocation/free

2023-08-25T15:06:53+00:00

Allocations and frees are globally serialized on the pcpu lock (and the CPU hotplug lock if enabled, which is the case on Debian). At least one frequent consumer allocates 4 back-to-back counters (and frees them in the same manner), exacerbating the problem. While this does not fully remedy scalability issues, it is a step towards that goal and provides immediate relief. Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik Reviewed-by: Dennis Zhou Reviewed-by: Vegard Nossum Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230823050609.2228718-2-mjguzik@gmail.com [Dennis: reflowed a few lines] Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou

pcpcntr: remove percpu_counter_sum_all()

2023-03-19T17:02:04+00:00

percpu_counter_sum_all() is now redundant as the race condition it was invented to handle is now dealt with by percpu_counter_sum() directly and all users of percpu_counter_sum_all() have been removed. Remove it. This effectively reverts the changes made in f689054aace2 ("percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all interface") except for the cpumask iteration that fixes percpu_counter_sum() made earlier in this series. Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong

pcpcntrs: fix dying cpu summation race

2023-03-19T17:02:04+00:00

In commit f689054aace2 ("percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all interface") a race condition between a cpu dying and percpu_counter_sum() iterating online CPUs was identified. The solution was to iterate all possible CPUs for summation via percpu_counter_sum_all(). We recently had a percpu_counter_sum() call in XFS trip over this same race condition and it fired a debug assert because the filesystem was unmounting and the counter *should* be zero just before we destroy it. That was reported here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230314090649.326642-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com/ likely as a result of running generic/648 which exercises filesystems in the presence of CPU online/offline events. The solution to use percpu_counter_sum_all() is an awful one. We use percpu counters and percpu_counter_sum() for accurate and reliable threshold detection for space management, so a summation race condition during these operations can result in overcommit of available space and that may result in filesystem shutdowns. As percpu_counter_sum_all() iterates all possible CPUs rather than just those online or even those present, the mask can include CPUs that aren't even installed in the machine, or in the case of machines that can hot-plug CPU capable nodes, even have physical sockets present in the machine. Fundamentally, this race condition is caused by the CPU being offlined being removed from the cpu_online_mask before the notifier that cleans up per-cpu state is run. Hence percpu_counter_sum() will not sum the count for a cpu currently being taken offline, regardless of whether the notifier has run or not. This is the root cause of the bug. The percpu counter notifier iterates all the registered counters, locks the counter and moves the percpu count to the global sum. This is serialised against other operations that move the percpu counter to the global sum as well as percpu_counter_sum() operations that sum the percpu counts while holding the counter lock. Hence the notifier is safe to run concurrently with sum operations, and the only thing we actually need to care about is that percpu_counter_sum() iterates dying CPUs. That's trivial to do, and when there are no CPUs dying, it has no addition overhead except for a cpumask_or() operation. This change makes percpu_counter_sum() always do the right thing in the presence of CPU hot unplug events and makes percpu_counter_sum_all() unnecessary. This, in turn, means that filesystems like XFS, ext4, and btrfs don't have to work out when they should use percpu_counter_sum() vs percpu_counter_sum_all() in their space accounting algorithms Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong

lib/percpu_counter: percpu_counter_add_batch() overflow/underflow

2023-02-03T06:50:01+00:00

Patch series "various irq handling fixes/docu updates". If an interrupt happens between __this_cpu_read(*fbc->counters) and this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount), and that interrupt modifies the per_cpu_counter, then the this_cpu_add() after the interrupt returns may under/overflow. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221216150155.200389-1-manfred@colorfullife.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221216150441.200533-1-manfred@colorfullife.com Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul Cc: "Sun, Jiebin" Cc: <1vier1@web.de> Cc: Alexander Sverdlin Cc: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all interface

2022-11-30T23:58:40+00:00

The percpu_counter is used for scenarios where performance is more important than the accuracy. For percpu_counter users, who want more accurate information in their slowpath, percpu_counter_sum is provided which traverses all the online CPUs to accumulate the data. The reason it only needs to traverse online CPUs is because percpu_counter does implement CPU offline callback which syncs the local data of the offlined CPU. However there is a small race window between the online CPUs traversal of percpu_counter_sum and the CPU offline callback. The offline callback has to traverse all the percpu_counters on the system to flush the CPU local data which can be a lot. During that time, the CPU which is going offline has already been published as offline to all the readers. So, as the offline callback is running, percpu_counter_sum can be called for one counter which has some state on the CPU going offline. Since percpu_counter_sum only traverses online CPUs, it will skip that specific CPU and the offline callback might not have flushed the state for that specific percpu_counter on that offlined CPU. Normally this is not an issue because percpu_counter users can deal with some inaccuracy for small time window. However a new user i.e. mm_struct on the cleanup path wants to check the exact state of the percpu_counter through check_mm(). For such users, this patch introduces percpu_counter_sum_all() which traverses all possible CPUs and it is used in fork.c:check_mm() to avoid the potential race. This issue is exposed by the later patch "mm: convert mm's rss stats into percpu_counter". Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221109012011.881058-1-shakeelb@google.com Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

lib/percpu_counter: tame kernel-doc compile warning

2021-05-07T02:24:12+00:00

commit 3e8f399da490 ("writeback: rework wb_[dec|inc]_stat family of functions") add some function description of percpu_counter_add_batch. but the double '*' in comments means a kernel-doc format comment which isn't right. Since the whole file of lib/percpu_counter.c has no any other kernel-doc format comments, we'd better to remove this incomplete one to tame the kernel-doc warning: lib/percpu_counter.c:83: warning: Function parameter or member 'fbc' not described in 'percpu_counter_add_batch' lib/percpu_counter.c:83: warning: Function parameter or member 'amount' not described in 'percpu_counter_add_batch' lib/percpu_counter.c:83: warning: Function parameter or member 'batch' not described in 'percpu_counter_add_batch' Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210405135505.132446-1-alexs@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alex Shi Cc: Nikolay Borisov Cc: Stephen Boyd Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds