[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7OrDrq571An-GHeWFNvARWsS+fvX1-G9=nYzxgq2N3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:52:50 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix race between kmem_cache destroy, create and deactivate
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:20 AM Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 05:12:04PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > The memcg kmem cache creation and deactivation (SLUB only) is
> > asynchronous. If a root kmem cache is destroyed whose memcg cache is in
> > the process of creation or deactivation, the kernel may crash.
> >
> > Example of one such crash:
> > general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
> > CPU: 1 PID: 1721 Comm: kworker/14:1 Not tainted 4.17.0-smp
> > ...
> > Workqueue: memcg_kmem_cache kmemcg_deactivate_workfn
> > RIP: 0010:has_cpu_slab
> > ...
> > Call Trace:
> > ? on_each_cpu_cond
> > __kmem_cache_shrink
> > kmemcg_cache_deact_after_rcu
> > kmemcg_deactivate_workfn
> > process_one_work
> > worker_thread
> > kthread
> > ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> >
> > To fix this race, on root kmem cache destruction, mark the cache as
> > dying and flush the workqueue used for memcg kmem cache creation and
> > deactivation.
>
> > @@ -845,6 +862,8 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > if (unlikely(!s))
> > return;
> >
> > + flush_memcg_workqueue(s);
> > +
>
> This should definitely help against async memcg_kmem_cache_create(),
> but I'm afraid it doesn't eliminate the race with async destruction,
> unfortunately, because the latter uses call_rcu_sched():
>
> memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches
> __kmem_cache_deactivate
> slab_deactivate_memcg_cache_rcu_sched
> call_rcu_sched
> kmem_cache_destroy
> shutdown_memcg_caches
> shutdown_cache
> memcg_deactivate_rcufn
> <dereference destroyed cache>
>
> Can we somehow flush those pending rcu requests?
You are right and thanks for catching that. Now I am wondering if
synchronize_sched() just before flush_workqueue() should be enough.
Otherwise we might have to replace call_sched_rcu with
synchronize_sched() in kmemcg_deactivate_workfn which I would not
prefer as that would holdup the kmem_cache workqueue.
+Paul
Paul, we have a situation something similar to the following pseudo code.
CPU0:
lock(l)
if (!flag)
call_rcu_sched(callback);
unlock(l)
------
CPU1:
lock(l)
flag = true
unlock(l)
synchronize_sched()
------
If CPU0 has called already called call_rchu_sched(callback) then later
if CPU1 calls synchronize_sched(). Is there any guarantee that on
return from synchronize_sched(), the rcu callback scheduled by CPU0
has already been executed?
thanks,
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists