[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52B2C0B5.9010602@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:47:33 +0400
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] memcg, slab: RCU protect memcg_params for root caches
On 12/19/2013 01:43 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-12-13 13:36:42, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 01:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-12-13 17:16:57, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
>>>> index 1d8b53f..53b81a9 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/slab.h
>>>> +++ b/mm/slab.h
>>>> @@ -164,10 +164,16 @@ static inline struct kmem_cache *
>>>> cache_from_memcg_idx(struct kmem_cache *s, int idx)
>>>> {
>>>> struct kmem_cache *cachep;
>>>> + struct memcg_cache_params *params;
>>>>
>>>> if (!s->memcg_params)
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> - cachep = s->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx];
>>>> +
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> + params = rcu_dereference(s->memcg_params);
>>>> + cachep = params->memcg_caches[idx];
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +
>>> Consumer has to be covered by the same rcu section otherwise
>>> memcg_params might be freed right after rcu unlock here.
>> No. We protect only accesses to kmem_cache::memcg_params, which can
>> potentially be relocated for root caches.
> Hmm, ok. So memcg_params might change (a new memcg is accounted) but
> pointers at idx will be same, right?
Yes, that's a classical Read-Copy-Update :-)
>
>> But as soon as we get the
>> pointer to a kmem_cache from this array, we can freely dereference it,
>> because the cache cannot be freed when we use it. This is, because we
>> access a kmem_cache either under the slab_mutex or
>> memcg->slab_caches_mutex, or when we allocate/free from it. While doing
>> the latter, the cache can't go away, it would be a bug. IMO.
> That expects that cache_from_memcg_idx is always called with slab_mutex
> or slab_caches_mutex held, right? Please document it.
Yeah, you're right, this longs for a documentation. I'm going to check
this code a bit more and try to write a good comment about it (although
I'm rather poor at writing comments :-( )
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists