linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm, shrinker: make shrinker

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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:07:08 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, shrinker: make shrinker_list lockless

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:37:40AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> In our production, we have observed that the job loader gets stuck for
>> 10s of seconds while doing mount operation. It turns out that it was
>> stuck in register_shrinker() and some unrelated job was under memory
>> pressure and spending time in shrink_slab(). Our machines have a lot
>> of shrinkers registered and jobs under memory pressure has to traverse
>> all of those memcg-aware shrinkers and do affect unrelated jobs which
>> want to register their own shrinkers.
>>
>> This patch has made the shrinker_list traversal lockless and shrinker
>> register remain fast. For the shrinker unregister, atomic counter
>> has been introduced to avoid synchronize_rcu() call. The fields of
>
> So, do you want to enhance unregister shrinker path as well as registering?
>

Yes, I don't want to add delay to unregister_shrinker for the normal
case where there isn't any readers (i.e. unconditional
synchronize_rcu).

>> struct shrinker has been rearraged to make sure that the size does
>> not increase for x86_64.
>>
>> The shrinker functions are allowed to reschedule() and thus can not
>> be called with rcu read lock. One way to resolve that is to use
>> srcu read lock but then ifdefs has to be used as SRCU is behind
>> CONFIG_SRCU. Another way is to just release the rcu read lock before
>> calling the shrinker and reacquire on the return. The atomic counter
>> will make sure that the shrinker entry will not be freed under us.
>
> Instead of adding new lock, could we simply release shrinker_rwsem read-side
> lock in list traveral periodically to give a chance to hold a write-side
> lock?
>

Greg has already pointed out that this patch is still not right/safe
and now I am getting to the opinion that without changing the shrinker
API, it might not be possible to do lockless shrinker traversal and
unregister shrinker without synchronize_rcu().

Regarding your suggestion, do you mean to add periodic release lock
and reacquire using down_read_trylock() or down_read()?