| 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: <CAHbLzkpvzt=zwvSfGY2qXWmhLCY2WiRrbVFvj8J3vEq=x=54CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 10:45:44 -0800
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
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: [v7 PATCH 07/12] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker
is registered
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:39 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:46:41AM -0800, 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.
> >
> > Remove SHRINKER_REGISTERING since we could check if shrinker is registered
> > successfully by the new flag.
> >
> > Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/shrinker.h | 7 ++++---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 31 +++++++++----------------------
> > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 25 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 273efbf4d53c..a047980536cf 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -315,19 +315,6 @@ void set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int shrinker_id)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * We allow subsystems to populate their shrinker-related
> > - * LRU lists before register_shrinker_prepared() is called
> > - * for the shrinker, since we don't want to impose
> > - * restrictions on their internal registration order.
> > - * In this case shrink_slab_memcg() may find corresponding
> > - * bit is set in the shrinkers map.
> > - *
> > - * This value is used by the function to detect registering
> > - * shrinkers and to skip do_shrink_slab() calls for them.
> > - */
> > -#define SHRINKER_REGISTERING ((struct shrinker *)~0UL)
> > -
> > static DEFINE_IDR(shrinker_idr);
> >
> > static int prealloc_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> > @@ -336,7 +323,7 @@ static int prealloc_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >
> > down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > /* This may call shrinker, so it must use down_read_trylock() */
> > - id = idr_alloc(&shrinker_idr, SHRINKER_REGISTERING, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + id = idr_alloc(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (id < 0)
> > goto unlock;
> >
> > @@ -499,10 +486,7 @@ void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> > {
> > down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > - if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > - idr_replace(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, shrinker->id);
> > -#endif
> > + shrinker->flags |= SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
> > up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -522,13 +506,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
> > */
> > void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> > {
> > - if (!shrinker->nr_deferred)
> > + if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED))
> > return;
> > - if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > - unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
> > +
> > down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > list_del(&shrinker->list);
> > + shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
> > up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > +
> > + if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > + unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
>
> Because unregister_memcg_shrinker() will take and release shrinker_rwsem once again,
> I wonder if it's better to move it into the locked section and change the calling
> convention to require the caller to take the semaphore?
BTW, I think lockdep_assert_held() in unregister_memcg_shrinker()
seems good enough.
>
> > kfree(shrinkrem->nr_deferred);
> > shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
> > }
> > @@ -693,7 +680,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> > struct shrinker *shrinker;
> >
> > shrinker = idr_find(&shrinker_idr, i);
> > - if (unlikely(!shrinker || shrinker == SHRINKER_REGISTERING)) {
> > + if (unlikely(!shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED))) {
> > if (!shrinker)
> > clear_bit(i, info->map);
> > continue;
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists