| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201711161956.EBF57883.QFFMOLOVSOHJFt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:56:37 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: hannes@...xchg.org
Cc: mhocko@...nel.org, minchan@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,vmscan: Kill global shrinker lock.
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 07:58:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I think that Minchan's approach depends on how
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > is interpreted. If there were 100000 shrinkers and each do_shrink_slab() call
> > took 1 millisecond, aborting the iteration as soon as rwsem_is_contended() would
> > help a lot. But if there were 10 shrinkers and each do_shrink_slab() call took
> > 10 seconds, aborting the iteration as soon as rwsem_is_contended() would help
> > less. Or, there might be some specific shrinker where its do_shrink_slab() call
> > takes 100 seconds. In that case, checking rwsem_is_contended() is too lazy.
>
> In your patch, unregister() waits for shrinker->nr_active instead of
> the lock, which is decreased in the same location where Minchan drops
> the lock. How is that different behavior for long-running shrinkers?
My patch waits for only one shrinker which unregister_shrinker() is trying to
unregister. Minchan's patch waits for the longest-running in-flight shrinkers.
The difference is that my patch is not disturbed by other in-flight shrinkers
unless the shrinker which unregister_shrinker() is trying to unregister is
the longest-running in-flight shrinker, but it is natural (and required thing)
to wait for the shrinker which unregister_shrinker() is trying to unregister.
This will make difference if some shrinker which unregister_shrinker() is not
trying to unregister is doing crazy stuff.
>
> Anyway, I suspect it's many shrinkers and many concurrent invocations,
> so the lockbreak granularity you both chose should be fine.
>
So far, Shakeel's environment does not seem to have shrinkers which do
crazy stuff. But if there is, my approach will reduce the latency.
If we can tolerate per "struct task_struct" marker, I think we can remove
atomic variables.
---
include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
include/linux/shrinker.h | 1 +
mm/vmscan.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index a5dc7c9..f7eed9b 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1098,6 +1098,7 @@ struct task_struct {
/* Used by LSM modules for access restriction: */
void *security;
#endif
+ struct shrinker *active_shrinker; /* Not for deref. */
/*
* New fields for task_struct should be added above here, so that
diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
index 388ff29..77cfd3f 100644
--- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
+++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ struct shrinker {
/* These are for internal use */
struct list_head list;
+ struct list_head gc_list;
/* objs pending delete, per node */
atomic_long_t *nr_deferred;
};
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 1c1bc95..c6b2f5c 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ struct scan_control {
unsigned long vm_total_pages;
static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
-static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(shrinker_lock);
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
@@ -285,9 +285,9 @@ 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_lock);
+ list_add_tail_rcu(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
+ spin_unlock(&shrinker_lock);
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
@@ -297,9 +297,40 @@ int register_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
*/
void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
{
- down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
- list_del(&shrinker->list);
- up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
+ struct task_struct *g, *p;
+ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_gc_list);
+ struct shrinker *gc;
+
+ spin_lock(&shrinker_lock);
+ list_del_rcu(&shrinker->list);
+ /*
+ * Need to update ->list.next if concurrently unregistering shrinkers
+ * can find this shrinker, for this shrinker's unregistration might
+ * complete before their unregistrations complete.
+ */
+ list_for_each_entry(gc, &shrinker_gc_list, gc_list) {
+ if (gc->list.next == &shrinker->list)
+ rcu_assign_pointer(gc->list.next, shrinker->list.next);
+ }
+ list_add_tail(&shrinker->gc_list, &shrinker_gc_list);
+ spin_unlock(&shrinker_lock);
+ synchronize_rcu();
+ retry:
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
+ if (unlikely(p->active_shrinker == shrinker)) {
+ get_task_struct(p);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ while (p->active_shrinker == shrinker)
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
+ put_task_struct(p);
+ goto retry;
+ }
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ spin_lock(&shrinker_lock);
+ list_del(&shrinker->gc_list);
+ spin_unlock(&shrinker_lock);
kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
@@ -468,18 +499,8 @@ 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;
- }
-
- 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,
@@ -498,11 +519,13 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE))
sc.nid = 0;
+ current->active_shrinker = shrinker;
+ rcu_read_unlock();
freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, nr_scanned, nr_eligible);
+ rcu_read_lock();
}
-
- up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
-out:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ current->active_shrinker = NULL;
cond_resched();
return freed;
}
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists