| 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: <964ee4fe-bbd1-0caa-4c5e-a73af99ee7bb@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:23:28 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
hughd@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, aspriel@...il.com,
vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org, robin.murphy@....com, joe@...ches.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
vdavydov.dev@...il.com, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
jbacik@...com, mingo@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/10] mm: Make shrink_slab() lockless
On 09.08.2018 10:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-08-18 16:20:54, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> [Added two more places needed srcu_dereference(). All ->shrinker_map
>> dereferences must be under SRCU, and this v2 adds missed in previous]
>>
>> The patch makes shrinker list and shrinker_idr SRCU-safe
>> for readers. This requires synchronize_srcu() on finalize
>> stage unregistering stage, which waits till all parallel
>> shrink_slab() are finished
>>
>> Note, that patch removes rwsem_is_contended() checks from
>> the code, and this does not result in delays during
>> registration, since there is no waiting at all. Unregistration
>> case may be optimized by splitting unregister_shrinker()
>> in tho stages, and this is made in next patches.
>>
>> Also, keep in mind, that in case of SRCU is not allowed
>> to make unconditional (which is done in previous patch),
>> it is possible to use percpu_rw_semaphore instead of it.
>> percpu_down_read() will be used in shrink_slab_memcg()
>> and in shrink_slab(), and consecutive calls
>>
>> percpu_down_write(percpu_rwsem);
>> percpu_up_write(percpu_rwsem);
>>
>> will be used instead of synchronize_srcu().
>
> An obvious question. Why didn't you go that way? What are pros/cons of
> both approaches?
percpu_rw_semaphore based variant looks something like:
commit d581d4ad7ecf
Author: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Date: Thu Aug 9 14:21:12 2018 +0300
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 0ff97e860759..fe8693775e33 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ unsigned long vm_total_pages;
static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
+DEFINE_STATIC_PERCPU_RWSEM(shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
@@ -198,7 +199,10 @@ static int prealloc_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
goto unlock;
if (id >= shrinker_nr_max) {
- if (memcg_expand_shrinker_maps(id)) {
+ percpu_down_write(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
+ ret = memcg_expand_shrinker_maps(id);
+ percpu_up_write(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
+ if (ret) {
idr_remove(&shrinker_idr, id);
goto unlock;
}
@@ -406,7 +410,7 @@ void free_prealloced_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
{
down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
- list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
+ list_add_tail_rcu(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
idr_replace(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, shrinker->id);
#endif
@@ -434,8 +438,14 @@ void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
- list_del(&shrinker->list);
+ list_del_rcu(&shrinker->list);
up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
+
+ synchronize_rcu();
+
+ percpu_down_write(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
+ percpu_up_write(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
+
kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
}
@@ -574,11 +584,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
if (!memcg_kmem_enabled() || !mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
return 0;
- if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
+ if (!percpu_down_read_trylock(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem))
return 0;
map = rcu_dereference_protected(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_map,
- true);
+ true /* shrinker_percpu_rwsem */);
if (unlikely(!map))
goto unlock;
@@ -590,7 +600,22 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
};
struct shrinker *shrinker;
+ /*
+ * See shutdown sequence in unregister_shrinker().
+ * RCU allows us to iterate IDR locklessly (this
+ * is the way to synchronize with IDR changing by
+ * idr_alloc()).
+ *
+ * If we see shrinker pointer undex RCU, this means
+ * synchronize_rcu() in unregister_shrinker() has not
+ * finished yet. Then, we unlock RCU, and synchronize_rcu()
+ * can complete, but unregister_shrinker() can't proceed,
+ * before we unlock shrinker_percpu_rwsem.
+ */
+ rcu_read_lock();
shrinker = idr_find(&shrinker_idr, i);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
if (unlikely(!shrinker || shrinker == SHRINKER_REGISTERING)) {
if (!shrinker)
clear_bit(i, map->map);
@@ -624,13 +649,13 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
}
freed += ret;
- if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
+ if (!rcu_sync_is_idle(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem.rss)) {
freed = freed ? : 1;
break;
}
}
unlock:
- up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
+ percpu_up_read(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
return freed;
}
#else /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
@@ -672,15 +697,17 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
return shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_mask, nid, memcg, priority);
- if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
+ if (!percpu_down_read_trylock(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem))
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,
.memcg = memcg,
};
+ rcu_read_unlock();
ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
@@ -691,13 +718,16 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
* prevent the regsitration from being stalled for long periods
* by parallel ongoing shrinking.
*/
- if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
+ if (!rcu_sync_is_idle(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem.rss)) {
freed = freed ? : 1;
break;
}
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
- up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
+ percpu_up_read(&shrinker_percpu_rwsem);
out:
cond_resched();
return freed;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists