Message-ID: <3efa68e0-b04f-5c11-4fe2-2db0784064fc@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 11:45:16 +0800
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        tkhai@...ru, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, djwong@...nel.org,
        brauner@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/29] mm: vmscan: make global slab shrink lockless



On 2023/7/4 00:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 04:29:39PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:12:02PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 6/22/23 10:53, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> @@ -1067,33 +1068,27 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>   	if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
>>>>   		return shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_mask, nid, memcg, priority);
>>>>   
>>>> -	if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
>>>> -		goto out;
>>>> -
>>>> -	list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>>>>   		struct shrink_control sc = {
>>>>   			.gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>>>>   			.nid = nid,
>>>>   			.memcg = memcg,
>>>>   		};
>>>>   
>>>> +		if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker))
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>>>
>>> I don't think you can do this unlock?
> 
> Sorry to be slow to respond here, this one fell through the cracks.
> And thank you to Qi for reminding me!
> 
> If you do this unlock, you had jolly well better nail down the current
> element (the one referenced by shrinker), for example, by acquiring an
> explicit reference count on the object.  And presumably this is exactly
> what shrinker_try_get() is doing.  And a look at your 24/29 confirms this,
> at least assuming that shrinker->refcount is set to zero before the call
> to synchronize_rcu() in free_module() *and* that synchronize_rcu() doesn't
> start until *after* shrinker_put() calls complete().  Plus, as always,
> the object must be removed from the list before the synchronize_rcu()
> starts.  (On these parts of the puzzle, I defer to those more familiar
> with this code path.  And I strongly suggest carefully commenting this
> type of action-at-a-distance design pattern.)

Yeah, I think I've done it like above. A more detailed timing diagram is
below.

> 
> Why is this important?  Because otherwise that object might be freed
> before you get to the call to rcu_read_lock() at the end of this loop.
> And if that happens, list_for_each_entry_rcu() will be walking the
> freelist, which is quite bad for the health and well-being of your kernel.
> 
> There are a few other ways to make this sort of thing work:
> 
> 1.	Defer the shrinker_put() to the beginning of the loop.
> 	You would need a flag initially set to zero, and then set to
> 	one just before (or just after) the rcu_read_lock() above.
> 	You would also need another shrinker_old pointer to track the
> 	old pointer.  Then at the top of the loop, if the flag is set,
> 	invoke shrinker_put() on shrinker_old.	This ensures that the
> 	previous shrinker structure stays around long enough to allow
> 	the loop to find the next shrinker structure in the list.
> 
> 	This approach is attractive when the removal code path
> 	can invoke shrinker_put() after the grace period ends.
> 
> 2.	Make shrinker_put() invoke call_rcu() when ->refcount reaches
> 	zero, and have the callback function free the object.  This of
> 	course requires adding an rcu_head structure to the shrinker
> 	structure, which might or might not be a reasonable course of
> 	action.  If adding that rcu_head is reasonable, this simplifies
> 	the logic quite a bit.
> 
> 3.	For the shrinker-structure-removal code path, remove the shrinker
> 	structure, then remove the initial count from ->refcount,
> 	and then keep doing grace periods until ->refcount is zero,
> 	then do one more.  Of course, if the result of removing the
> 	initial count was zero, then only a single additional grace
> 	period is required.
> 
> 	This would need to be carefully commented, as it is a bit
> 	unconventional.

Thanks for such a detailed addition!

> 
> There are probably many other ways, but just to give an idea of a few
> other ways to do this.
> 
>>>> +
>>>>   		ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
>>>>   		if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
>>>>   			ret = 0;
>>>>   		freed += ret;
>>>> -		/*
>>>> -		 * Bail out if someone want to register a new shrinker to
>>>> -		 * prevent the registration from being stalled for long periods
>>>> -		 * by parallel ongoing shrinking.
>>>> -		 */
>>>> -		if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
>>>> -			freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>> -			break;
>>>> -		}
>>>> -	}
>>>>   
>>>> -	up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>>> -out:
>>>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>>>
>>> That new rcu_read_lock() won't help AFAIK, the whole
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu() needs to be under the single rcu_read_lock() to be
>>> safe.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the pattern we've been taught and the one we can look
>> at and immediately say "this is safe".
>>
>> This is a different pattern, as has been explained bi Qi, and I
>> think it *might* be safe.
>>
>> *However.*
>>
>> Right now I don't have time to go through a novel RCU list iteration
>> pattern it one step at to determine the correctness of the
>> algorithm. I'm mostly worried about list manipulations that can
>> occur outside rcu_read_lock() section bleeding into the RCU
>> critical section because rcu_read_lock() by itself is not a memory
>> barrier.
>>
>> Maybe Paul has seen this pattern often enough he could simply tell
>> us what conditions it is safe in. But for me to work that out from
>> first principles? I just don't have the time to do that right now.
> 
> If the code does just the right sequence of things on the removal path
> (remove, decrement reference, wait for reference to go to zero, wait for
> grace period, free), then it would work.  If this is what is happening,
> I would argue for more comments.  ;-)

The order of the removal path is slightly different from this:

     shrink_slab                 unregister_shrinker
     ===========                 ===================
		
    shrinker_try_get()
    rcu_read_unlock()		
                                 1. decrement initial reference
				shrinker_put()
				2. wait for reference to go to zero
				wait_for_completion()
    rcu_read_lock()

    shrinker_put()
				3. remove the shrinker from list
				list_del_rcu()
                                 4. wait for grace period
				kfree_rcu()/synchronize_rcu()


    list_for_each_entry()

    shrinker_try_get()
    rcu_read_unlock()
				5. free the shrinker

So the order is: decrement reference, wait for reference to go to zero,
remove, wait for grace period, free.

I think this can work. And we can only do the *step 3* after we hold the
RCU read lock again, right? Please let me know if I missed something.

Thanks,
Qi

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
>>> IIUC this is why Dave in [4] suggests unifying shrink_slab() with
>>> shrink_slab_memcg(), as the latter doesn't iterate the list but uses IDR.
>>
>> Yes, I suggested the IDR route because radix tree lookups under RCU
>> with reference counted objects are a known safe pattern that we can
>> easily confirm is correct or not.  Hence I suggested the unification
>> + IDR route because it makes the life of reviewers so, so much
>> easier...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave.
>> -- 
>> Dave Chinner
>> david@...morbit.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists