linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 05/11] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker is registered

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: <CAHbLzkqZ7Hmo7DSQijrgoKaDQDaOb3+tTGeJ2xU8drFKZ6jv4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:17:25 -0800
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 05/11] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker
 is registered

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:22 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 06.01.2021 01:58, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Currently registered shrinker is indicated by non-NULL shrinker->nr_deferred.
> > This approach is fine with nr_deferred at the shrinker level, but the following
> > patches will move MEMCG_AWARE shrinkers' nr_deferred to memcg level, so their
> > shrinker->nr_deferred would always be NULL.  This would prevent the shrinkers
> > from unregistering correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/shrinker.h |  7 ++++---
> >  mm/vmscan.c              | 13 +++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> > index 0f80123650e2..1eac79ce57d4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> > @@ -79,13 +79,14 @@ struct shrinker {
> >  #define DEFAULT_SEEKS 2 /* A good number if you don't know better. */
> >
> >  /* Flags */
> > -#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE  (1 << 0)
> > -#define SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE (1 << 1)
> > +#define SHRINKER_REGISTERED  (1 << 0)
> > +#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE  (1 << 1)
> > +#define SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE (1 << 2)
> >  /*
> >   * It just makes sense when the shrinker is also MEMCG_AWARE for now,
> >   * non-MEMCG_AWARE shrinker should not have this flag set.
> >   */
> > -#define SHRINKER_NONSLAB     (1 << 2)
> > +#define SHRINKER_NONSLAB     (1 << 3)
> >
> >  extern int prealloc_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker);
> >  extern void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker);
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 8da765a85569..9761c7c27412 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -494,6 +494,7 @@ void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >       if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> >               idr_replace(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, shrinker->id);
> >  #endif
> > +     shrinker->flags |= SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
>
> In case of we introduce this new flag, we should kill old flag SHRINKER_REGISTERING,
> which are not needed anymore (we should you the new flag instead of that).

The only think that I'm confused with is the check in
shrink_slab_memcg, it does:

shrinker = idr_find(&shrinker_idr, i);
if (unlikely(!shrinker || shrinker == SHRINKER_REGISTERING)) {

When allocating idr, the shrinker is associated with
SHRINKER_REGISTERING. But, shrink_slab_memcg does acquire read
shrinker_rwsem, and idr_alloc is called with holding write
shrinker_rwsem, so I'm supposed shrink_slab_memcg should never see
shrinker is registering. If so it seems easy to remove
SHRINKER_REGISTERING.

We just need change that check to:
!shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED)

> >       up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -513,13 +514,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
> >   */
> >  void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >  {
> > -     if (!shrinker->nr_deferred)
> > -             return;
> > -     if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > -             unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
> >       down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>
> I do not think there are some users which registration may race with unregistration.
> So, I think we should check SHRINKER_REGISTERED unlocked similar to we used to check
> shrinker->nr_deferred unlocked.

Yes, I agree.

>
> > +     if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED)) {
> > +             up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > +             return;
> > +     }
> >       list_del(&shrinker->list);
> > +     shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
> >       up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > +
> > +     if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > +             unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
> >       kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
> >       shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
> >  }
> >
>
>