lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kretprobe scalability improvement
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:10:08 +0800
Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:

> On 2021/7/7 AM12:25, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:21:00 +0800
> > Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2021/7/5 PM2:59, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 18:28:18 +0800
> >>> "wuqiang" <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: wuqiang <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> The original freelist is a LIFO queue based on singly linked list, which lacks
> >>>> of scalability, and thus becomes bottleneck under high workloads. freelist was
> >>>> introduced by Masami Hiramatsu's work of removing kretprobe hash lock:
> >>>> url: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/29/209.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here an array-based MPMC lockless queue is proposed. The solution of bounded
> >>>> array can nicely avoid ABA issue, while freelist or circular queue etc. have
> >>>> to perform 2 CAS loops. The other advantage is that order and fairness can be
> >>>> ignored, the only concern is to retrieve kretprobe instance records as fast
> >>>> as possible, i.e. performance and correctness. Tests of kretprobe on 96-CORE
> >>>> ARM64 show the biggest gain as 466.7x of the original freelist throughput.
> >>>> The raw queue throughput can be 1,975 times of freelist. Here are the results:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ubuntu 20.04, 5.13.0-rc6 (XEON E5-2660V3 2.4G, DDR4 2133MT/s, 10 CORES/20 THREADS):
> >>>> 1x 2x 4x 8x 10x 16x 20x 32x 40x
> >>>> freelist: 13086080 22493637 32773854 20129772 18455899 18435561 18980332 18988603 18991334
> >>>> array : 13144036 26059941 47449954 94517172 115856027 116414714 125692971 125553061 125685981
> >>>>
> >>>> Ubuntu 21.04 - 5.12.10 QEMU 96 CORES (HUAWEI TaiShan 2280V2 KP920 96 CORES 2.6G, DDR4 2944 MT/s):
> >>>> 1x 2x 4x 8x 16x 24x 48x 96x 192x
> >>>> freelist: 17,233,640 10,296,664 8,095,309 6,993,545 5,050,817 4,295,283 3,382,013 2,738,050 2,743,345
> >>>> array: 19,360,905 37,395,225 56,417,463 10,020,136 209,876,209 328,940,014 632,754,916 1,277,862,473 1,169,076,739
> >>>
> >>> Interesting result! How would you measure the overhead?
> >>> And also could you clarify the real scalability example of kretprobe usage ?
> >>> E.g. putting kretprobes at some function and profiling with perf. See following
> >>> slides for details.
> >>>
> >>> https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/files/slides/Handling%20the%20Massive%20Multiple%20Kprobes%20v2_1.pdf
> >>> (BTW, these efforts totally stalls a while, needs to be reviewed again)
> >>
> >> I did two kinds of tests: one is real kretprobe, the other is throughput
> >> comparison of different queue implementations.
> >>
> >> 1) kretprobe upon security_file_mprotect
> >>
> >> We found the performance bottleneck due to udp_recvmsg kretprobe in
> >> our production environment, then re-produced the issue with a lighter
> >> syscall: mprotect.
> >>
> >> "perf stat" is used to count number of sys_enter_mprotect calligs:
> >> perf stat -a -I 10000 -e 'syscalls:sys_enter_mprotect' vmstat 1 35
> >>
> >> The user mode program is just a loop of mprotect() to trigger the
> >> registered kretprobe callbacks. The codes are pushed to:
> >> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/blob/main/mprotect/
> >>
> >> I measured both kprobe and kretprobe for 4.14/5.9/5.12. The results
> >> of kprobe is really good, but kretprobe doesn't scale well (even for
> >> kernel 5.12 with "kprobes: Remove kretprobe hash").
> >
> > Hmm, Ok if there is a real kretprobe issue (not freelist), it should
> > be solved. Could you also point this result from your changelog?

oops s/from/to/.

>
> Here are the resuts:
>
> Linux 5.8.0-45-AMD64 Ubuntu T490 (i7-10510U 1.80G & DDR4 2667)
> threads baseline kprobe kretprobe
> 1p 72,816,571 59,411,825 34,578,853
> 2p 111,336,194 91,219,319 40,303,484
> 3p 144,082,415 112,813,784 41,762,717
> 4p 142,233,213 118,947,750 33,103,895
>
> Linux 5.12.0-AMD64 Ubuntu T490 (i7-10510U 1.80G & DDR4 2667)
> threads baseline kprobe kretprobe
> 1p 72,705,816 59,523,413 39,391,428
> 2p 108,577,114 90,913,449 48,940,956
> 3p 143,493,477 118,791,390 41,067,841
> 4p 170,406,366 139,667,883 32,398,033
>
> The chart picture is available at:
> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/kprobe_krp_perf.png
>
> For 5.8 the kretprobe performance is limited by kretprobe hash locking.
> Then I tried 5.12 with your patch of "Remove kretprobe hash" landed. But
> kretprobe still don't scale, then I digged further and found freelist is
> the culprit.

That's great.

>
> >> 2) raw queue throughput benchmarks
> >>
> >> I wrote a module with dedicated kernel threads performing insertions
> >> and deletions of several freelist implementations for 10ms.
> >>
> >> The codes and test scripts are available at:
> >> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/blob/main/scalable/
> >>
> >> 1) fl.h: original freelist, LIFO queue based on singly linked list
> >> 2) ra.h: read from random position, write to last read pos
> >> 3) sa.h: array-based queue, per-cpu slot to be equally distributed
> >> 4) saca.h: the proposed version, allocating array with L1 cache line
> >> aligned for each core
> >> 5) saea.h: make every elelment cache_line aligned
> >> 6) zz.h: a.k.a zigzag, remap numerical order to L1 cache distance,
> >> for 64bit pointers, 0 to 0, 1 to 8, 2 to 16
> >> 7) cq.h: native circular queue, not used, can not handle reentrance
> >>
> >> Two types of tests are performanced:
> >> 1) throughput bench: with no delay between deletion and insertion
> >> 2) emulation bench of real kretprobe: 1us delay before inserting back
> >>
> >> All the results and charts are available at:
> >> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/
> >>
> >
> > OK, this test report is also great :)
>
> Thanks. I will give the bpf-percpu-freelist a try this weekend.
>
> >>>> So linear scalability is still not available, limited by the following two
> >>>> considerations:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. keep it simple: best solution could be an implementation of per-cpu queues,
> >>>> but it's not applicable for this case due to complexity. After all for
> >>>> most cases the number of pre-allocated kretprobe instances (maxactive) is
> >>>> only a small value. If not specified by user during registering, maxactive
> >>>> is set as CPU cores or 2x when preemption is enabled
> >>>> 2. keep it compact: cache-line-alignment can solve false-sharing and minimize
> >>>> cache thrashing, but it introduces memory wasting, considering the small
> >>>> body of structure kretprobe_instance. Secondly the performance improvement
> >>>> of cache-line-aligned is not significant as expected
> >>>
> >>> If you really need the linear scalability, drop useless entry-handler and per
> >>> instance data (or just leave the data pointer) and allocate the instance pool
> >>> for each task struct. This is perfectly scalable, because kretprobe instance
> >>> is only for making a shadow stack for the task, not CPU.
> >>
> >> Yes, per-task list of kretprobe instances would deliver best throughput.
> >> But the penality could be high in memory efficency and implementations.
> >
> > How much penalty it would make? If we allocate a 4kb pool for each task,
> > it would be enough small compared with other resources (and we may be
> > able to select the pool on-line or compile option)
>
> Servers here (typically 96 cores) can have 2000 tasks, but the hosts
> providing docker services ccould have > 5000 tasks. One task can have
> several threads, likely < 2 on average. So estimated penalty could be
> 5000 * 2 * 4K, 39M bytes, i.e. 0.4M bytes per core.

And such a huge machine may have a huge memory too, I guess. :)

> kretprobe is not a certain thing. It's might not used at all, or a task
> might only trigger once in lifetime. The proposed solutions could provide
> promising results with less than 0.4M bytes memory usage per core.

OK, anyway I think this improvement seems good to me.

>
> >> Inspired by your idea, I'm thinking of allocating from stack:
> >>
> >> 1) from stack top: need modify stack top limit, might “violate” the
> >> purpose of guard page
> >> 2)reserve from current stack: need modify trampolines of fltrace and
> >> kprobe, but there are many challenges.
> >
> > No, I don't like this change because it will disturb the stack unwinder
> > and consuming the stack itself.
>
> got it.
>
> >>>> With a pre-built kernel, further performance tuning can be done by increasing
> >>>> maxactive when registering kretprobe. Tests show 4x cores number is a fair
> >>>> choice for both performance and memory efficiency.
> >>>
> >>> Which test should I check? If it is also good for the current freelist,
> >>> I would like to expand default maxactive. (actually, current maxactive
> >>> is chosen by the minimum availability)
> >>
> >> I tested with difference maxactive values. For current freelist, bigger
> >> maxactive values have less effects upon performance.
> >
> > So bigger 'maxactive' will scale better?
>
> Yes, I guess it can reduce cache conflicts. Later I could do a measure
> of cache misses.
>
> XEON / X86_64 (preempt=0 / cycleus=0)
> 1x 10x 20x
> zigzag:max=10 142649937 102381284 87993433
> freelist:max=10 90050953 14533279 12234181
> array:max=10 170718610 101061189 84507025
> strided:max=10 170885073 1645070467 471586589
> zigzag:max=20 142833611 251344437 124256740
> freelist:max=20 83193711 13796546 12035244
> array:max=20 157751314 208385189 139943284
> strided:max=20 157810810 1818188777 2188112898
> zigzag:max=40 154501823 682233175 242334634
> freelist:max=40 83284714 13852153 11654861
> array:max=40 157817022 361685213 251139824
> strided:max=40 158885047 1791159293 1973298443
>
> The chart url:
> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/kretprobe_maxactive.png

Great! OK, so this could be a cache conflict issue.

>
> >> "missed cases" was also tracked. Based on testings, so long as maxactive
> >> is more than cores number, there won't be "missed cases".
> >
> > That depends on where you put the probe. kretprobe can be nested and
> > sleepable. If you put a kretprobe on the function which doesn't yield,
> > you don't need bigger maxactive. But kretprobe on the function which
> > can sleep or yield, you may need more than that.
>
> Sure, it's depends on the environment (loads & apps). So that should be
> the caller's duty to specify when registering kreprobe.

Yes, hmm, I should notice that the default maxactive is the minimal basis
in the document...

>
> >>>>
> >>>> More info is available at: https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: wuqiang <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> include/linux/freelist.h | 187 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >>>> kernel/kprobes.c | 29 +++---
> >>>> 2 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/freelist.h b/include/linux/freelist.h
> >>>> index fc1842b96469..3d4a0bc425b2 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/freelist.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/freelist.h
> >>>> @@ -1,129 +1,122 @@
> >>>> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause */
> >>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> >>>
> >>> Please do NOT change the license without the agreement of all copyright holders.
> >>> Or, add a new file and remove the current freelist.h.
> >
> > What about this?
>
> Ok, it's fine to me. Actually it's a totally rewrite of freelist.h. I'll
> change it back in next version.

Yeah, I saw you change almost all lines. only APIs are left :).

Thank you!

>
> Thanks.
>
> >>>
> >>>> #ifndef FREELIST_H
> >>>> #define FREELIST_H
> >>>>
> >>>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/atomic.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> - * Copyright: cameron@moodycamel.com
> >>>> + * lockless queue for kretprobe instances
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * A simple CAS-based lock-free free list. Not the fastest thing in the world
> >>>> - * under heavy contention, but simple and correct (assuming nodes are never
> >>>> - * freed until after the free list is destroyed), and fairly speedy under low
> >>>> - * contention.
> >>>> - *
> >>>> - * Adapted from: https://moodycamel.com/blog/2014/solving-the-aba-problem-for-lock-free-free-lists
> >>>> + * It's an array-based MPMC lockless queue, solely for better scalability
> >>>> + * and contention mitigation. It's simple in implementation and compact in
> >>>> + * memory efficiency. The only concern is to retrieve kretprobe instance
> >>>> + * records as fast as possible, with both order and fairness ignored.
> >>>> */
> >>>>
> >>>> struct freelist_node {
> >>>> - atomic_t refs;
> >>>> - struct freelist_node *next;
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *next;
> >>>> };
> >>>> -
> >>>> struct freelist_head {
> >>>> - struct freelist_node *head;
> >>>> + uint32_t fh_size; /* rounded to power of 2 */
> >>>> + uint32_t fh_mask; /* (fh_size - 1) */
> >>>> + uint16_t fh_bits; /* log2(fh_size) */
> >>>> + uint16_t fh_step; /* per-core shift stride */
> >>>> + uint32_t fh_used; /* num of elements in list */
> >>>> + struct freelist_node **fh_ents; /* array for krp instances */
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> -#define REFS_ON_FREELIST 0x80000000
> >>>> -#define REFS_MASK 0x7FFFFFFF
> >>>> +static inline int freelist_init(struct freelist_head *list, int max)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + uint32_t size, cores = num_possible_cpus();
> >>>> +
> >>>> + list->fh_used = 0;
> >>>> + list->fh_step = ilog2(L1_CACHE_BYTES / sizeof(void *));
> >>>> + if (max < (cores << list->fh_step))
> >>>> + list->fh_size = roundup_pow_of_two(cores) << list->fh_step;
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + list->fh_size = roundup_pow_of_two(max);
> >>>> + list->fh_mask = list->fh_size - 1;
> >>>> + list->fh_bits = (uint16_t)ilog2(list->fh_size);
> >>>> + size = list->fh_size * sizeof(struct freelist_node *);
> >>>> + list->fh_ents = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> + if (!list->fh_ents)
> >>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> -static inline void __freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>>> +static inline int freelist_try_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Since the refcount is zero, and nobody can increase it once it's
> >>>> - * zero (except us, and we run only one copy of this method per node at
> >>>> - * a time, i.e. the single thread case), then we know we can safely
> >>>> - * change the next pointer of the node; however, once the refcount is
> >>>> - * back above zero, then other threads could increase it (happens under
> >>>> - * heavy contention, when the refcount goes to zero in between a load
> >>>> - * and a refcount increment of a node in try_get, then back up to
> >>>> - * something non-zero, then the refcount increment is done by the other
> >>>> - * thread) -- so if the CAS to add the node to the actual list fails,
> >>>> - * decrese the refcount and leave the add operation to the next thread
> >>>> - * who puts the refcount back to zero (which could be us, hence the
> >>>> - * loop).
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - struct freelist_node *head = READ_ONCE(list->head);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - for (;;) {
> >>>> - WRITE_ONCE(node->next, head);
> >>>> - atomic_set_release(&node->refs, 1);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - if (!try_cmpxchg_release(&list->head, &head, node)) {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Hmm, the add failed, but we can only try again when
> >>>> - * the refcount goes back to zero.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - if (atomic_fetch_add_release(REFS_ON_FREELIST - 1, &node->refs) == 1)
> >>>> - continue;
> >>>> + uint32_t i, hint = list->fh_used << list->fh_step;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *item = NULL;
> >>>> + uint32_t slot = (i + hint) & list->fh_mask;
> >>>> + if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, node)) {
> >>>> + list->fh_used++;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> }
> >>>> - return;
> >>>> }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return (i >= list->fh_size);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static inline void freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>>> +static inline int freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * We know that the should-be-on-freelist bit is 0 at this point, so
> >>>> - * it's safe to set it using a fetch_add.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - if (!atomic_fetch_add_release(REFS_ON_FREELIST, &node->refs)) {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Oh look! We were the last ones referencing this node, and we
> >>>> - * know we want to add it to the free list, so let's do it!
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - __freelist_add(node, list);
> >>>> - }
> >>>> + uint32_t hint = raw_smp_processor_id() << list->fh_step;
> >>>> + uint32_t slot = ((uint32_t) hint) & list->fh_mask;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + do {
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *item = NULL;
> >>>> + if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, node))
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> + slot = (slot + 1) & list->fh_mask;
> >>>> + } while (1);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return -1;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static inline struct freelist_node *freelist_try_get(struct freelist_head *list)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - struct freelist_node *prev, *next, *head = smp_load_acquire(&list->head);
> >>>> - unsigned int refs;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - while (head) {
> >>>> - prev = head;
> >>>> - refs = atomic_read(&head->refs);
> >>>> - if ((refs & REFS_MASK) == 0 ||
> >>>> - !atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&head->refs, &refs, refs+1)) {
> >>>> - head = smp_load_acquire(&list->head);
> >>>> - continue;
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *node = NULL;
> >>>> + uint32_t i, hint = raw_smp_processor_id() << list->fh_step;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >>>> + uint32_t slot = (hint + i) & list->fh_mask;
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *item = smp_load_acquire(&list->fh_ents[slot]);
> >>>> + if (item && try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, NULL)) {
> >>>> + node = item;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> }
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Good, reference count has been incremented (it wasn't at
> >>>> - * zero), which means we can read the next and not worry about
> >>>> - * it changing between now and the time we do the CAS.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - next = READ_ONCE(head->next);
> >>>> - if (try_cmpxchg_acquire(&list->head, &head, next)) {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Yay, got the node. This means it was on the list,
> >>>> - * which means should-be-on-freelist must be false no
> >>>> - * matter the refcount (because nobody else knows it's
> >>>> - * been taken off yet, it can't have been put back on).
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&head->refs) & REFS_ON_FREELIST);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * Decrease refcount twice, once for our ref, and once
> >>>> - * for the list's ref.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - atomic_fetch_add(-2, &head->refs);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - return head;
> >>>> - }
> >>>> + return node;
> >>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * OK, the head must have changed on us, but we still need to decrement
> >>>> - * the refcount we increased.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - refs = atomic_fetch_add(-1, &prev->refs);
> >>>> - if (refs == REFS_ON_FREELIST + 1)
> >>>> - __freelist_add(prev, list);
> >>>> +static inline void freelist_destroy(struct freelist_head *list, void *context,
> >>>> + int (*release)(void *, void *))
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + uint32_t i;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!list->fh_ents)
> >>>> + return;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >>>> + uint32_t slot = i & list->fh_mask;
> >>>> + struct freelist_node *item = smp_load_acquire(&list->fh_ents[slot]);
> >>>> + while (item) {
> >>>> + if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, NULL)) {
> >>>> + if (release)
> >>>> + release(context, item);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> - return NULL;
> >>>> + if (list->fh_ents) {
> >>>> + kfree(list->fh_ents);
> >>>> + list->fh_ents = NULL;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>> -
> >>>> #endif /* FREELIST_H */
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> >>>> index 471b1d18a92f..5c41bee25983 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> >>>> @@ -1277,20 +1277,21 @@ void kprobe_flush_task(struct task_struct *tk)
> >>>> }
> >>>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_flush_task);
> >>>>
> >>>> -static inline void free_rp_inst(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >>>> +static int release_ri(void *context, void *node)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct kretprobe_instance *ri;
> >>>> - struct freelist_node *node;
> >>>> - int count = 0;
> >>>> + ri = container_of(node, struct kretprobe_instance, freelist);
> >>>> + kfree(ri);
> >>>> + if (context)
> >>>> + (*((int *)context))++;
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> - node = rp->freelist.head;
> >>>> - while (node) {
> >>>> - ri = container_of(node, struct kretprobe_instance, freelist);
> >>>> - node = node->next;
> >>>> +static inline void free_rp_inst(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int count = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> - kfree(ri);
> >>>> - count++;
> >>>> - }
> >>>> + freelist_destroy(&rp->freelist, &count, release_ri);
> >>>>
> >>>> if (refcount_sub_and_test(count, &rp->rph->ref)) {
> >>>> kfree(rp->rph);
> >>>> @@ -2015,10 +2016,14 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >>>> rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
> >>>> #endif
> >>>> }
> >>>> - rp->freelist.head = NULL;
> >>>> + if (freelist_init(&rp->freelist, rp->maxactive))
> >>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +
> >>>> rp->rph = kzalloc(sizeof(struct kretprobe_holder), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> - if (!rp->rph)
> >>>> + if (!rp->rph) {
> >>>> + freelist_destroy(&rp->freelist, NULL, NULL);
> >>>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> rp->rph->rp = rp;
> >>>> for (i = 0; i < rp->maxactive; i++) {
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.25.1
> >
> >


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-07 13:27    [W:0.148 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site