lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150721121932.GJ11967@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:19:32 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2] mm: srcu-ify shrinkers

On Thu 16-07-15 13:55:13, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> The shrinker_rwsem is a global lock that protects the shrinker_list,
> serializing a shrinking call with register/unregistering the shrinker
> itself. As such, this lock is taken mostly for reading. In the unlikely
> case that the the list is being modified, we simply return indicating
> we want to iterate again. However, the only caller of shrink_slab()
> that acknowledges this return is drop_slab_node(), so in practice, the
> rest of the callers never try again.
>
> This patch proposes replacing the rwsem with an srcu aware list of
> shrinkers, where (un)registering tasks use a spinlock. Upon shrinker
> calls, the srcu read lock will guarantee the existence of the structure,
> thus safely optimizing the common (read locked) case. These guarantees
> also allow us to cleanup and simplify the code, getting rid of the
> ugly trylock mechanism to retry the shrinker operation when the list
> is concurrently being modified. As Michal pointed this is only worth
> mentioning for unregister purposes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>

Looks reasonable to me. I am pretty sure that any performance
improvements are close to 0 but the code looks better to me.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

> ---
> Changes from v1:
>  - Got rid of the trylock, per mhocko.
> 
>  fs/super.c  |  8 ++++----
>  mm/vmscan.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index b613723..c917817 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -49,8 +49,8 @@ static char *sb_writers_name[SB_FREEZE_LEVELS] = {
>   * One thing we have to be careful of with a per-sb shrinker is that we don't
>   * drop the last active reference to the superblock from within the shrinker.
>   * If that happens we could trigger unregistering the shrinker from within the
> - * shrinker path and that leads to deadlock on the shrinker_rwsem. Hence we
> - * take a passive reference to the superblock to avoid this from occurring.
> + * shrinker path. Hence we take a passive reference to the superblock to avoid
> + * this from occurring.
>   */
>  static unsigned long super_cache_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
>  				      struct shrink_control *sc)
> @@ -121,8 +121,8 @@ static unsigned long super_cache_count(struct shrinker *shrink,
>  	 * Don't call trylock_super as it is a potential
>  	 * scalability bottleneck. The counts could get updated
>  	 * between super_cache_count and super_cache_scan anyway.
> -	 * Call to super_cache_count with shrinker_rwsem held
> -	 * ensures the safety of call to list_lru_shrink_count() and
> +	 * SRCU guarantees object validity across this call -- thus
> +	 * it is safe to call list_lru_shrink_count() and
>  	 * s_op->nr_cached_objects().
>  	 */
>  	if (sb->s_op && sb->s_op->nr_cached_objects)
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c8d8282..fc820cf 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>  #include <linux/cpuset.h>
>  #include <linux/compaction.h>
>  #include <linux/notifier.h>
> -#include <linux/rwsem.h>
> +#include <linux/srcu.h>
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/kthread.h>
>  #include <linux/freezer.h>
> @@ -146,8 +146,9 @@ int vm_swappiness = 60;
>   */
>  unsigned long vm_total_pages;
>  
> +DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(shrinker_srcu);
>  static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> -static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(shrinker_list_lock);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>  static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> @@ -242,9 +243,9 @@ int register_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>  	if (!shrinker->nr_deferred)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> -	list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
> -	up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> +	spin_lock(&shrinker_list_lock);
> +	list_add_tail_rcu(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
> +	spin_unlock(&shrinker_list_lock);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
> @@ -254,9 +255,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
>   */
>  void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>  {
> -	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> -	list_del(&shrinker->list);
> -	up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> +	spin_lock(&shrinker_list_lock);
> +	list_del_rcu(&shrinker->list);
> +	spin_unlock(&shrinker_list_lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * Before freeing nr_deferred, ensure all srcu
> +	 * readers are done with their critical region.
> +	 */
> +	synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
>  	kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
> @@ -408,6 +414,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>  				 unsigned long nr_scanned,
>  				 unsigned long nr_eligible)
>  {
> +	int idx;
>  	struct shrinker *shrinker;
>  	unsigned long freed = 0;
>  
> @@ -417,18 +424,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>  	if (nr_scanned == 0)
>  		nr_scanned = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
>  
> -	if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * If we would return 0, our callers would understand that we
> -		 * have nothing else to shrink and give up trying. By returning
> -		 * 1 we keep it going and assume we'll be able to shrink next
> -		 * time.
> -		 */
> -		freed = 1;
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>  		struct shrink_control sc = {
>  			.gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>  			.nid = nid,
> @@ -444,8 +442,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>  		freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, nr_scanned, nr_eligible);
>  	}
>  
> -	up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
> -out:
> +	srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, idx);
>  	cond_resched();
>  	return freed;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.1.4
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ