[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YsejnaY7cy3SeHBF@B-P7TQMD6M-0146.local>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:25:17 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Guowei Du <duguoweisz@...il.com>
Cc: xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, duguowei <duguowei@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] erofs: sequence each shrink task
Hi Guowei,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 11:11:55AM +0800, Guowei Du wrote:
> From: duguowei <duguowei@...omi.com>
>
> Because of 'list_move_tail', if two or more tasks are shrinking, there
> will be different results for them.
Thanks for the patch. Two quick questions:
1) where is the PATCH 1/2;
2) What problem is the current patch trying to resolve...
>
> For example:
> After the first round, if shrink_run_no of entry equals run_no of task,
> task will break directly at the beginning of next round; if they are
> not equal, task will continue to shrink until encounter one entry
> which has the same number.
>
> It is difficult to confirm the real results of all tasks, so add a lock
> to only allow one task to shrink at the same time.
>
> How to test:
> task1:
> root#echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> [743071.839051] Call Trace:
> [743071.839052] <TASK>
> [743071.839054] do_shrink_slab+0x112/0x300
> [743071.839058] shrink_slab+0x211/0x2a0
> [743071.839060] drop_slab+0x72/0xe0
> [743071.839061] drop_caches_sysctl_handler+0x50/0xb0
> [743071.839063] proc_sys_call_handler+0x173/0x250
> [743071.839066] proc_sys_write+0x13/0x20
> [743071.839067] new_sync_write+0x104/0x180
> [743071.839070] ? send_command+0xe0/0x270
> [743071.839073] vfs_write+0x247/0x2a0
> [743071.839074] ksys_write+0xa7/0xe0
> [743071.839075] ? fpregs_assert_state_consistent+0x23/0x50
> [743071.839078] __x64_sys_write+0x1a/0x20
> [743071.839079] do_syscall_64+0x3a/0x80
> [743071.839081] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
>
> task2:
> root#echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> [743079.843214] Call Trace:
> [743079.843214] <TASK>
> [743079.843215] do_shrink_slab+0x112/0x300
> [743079.843219] shrink_slab+0x211/0x2a0
> [743079.843221] drop_slab+0x72/0xe0
> [743079.843222] drop_caches_sysctl_handler+0x50/0xb0
> [743079.843224] proc_sys_call_handler+0x173/0x250
> [743079.843227] proc_sys_write+0x13/0x20
> [743079.843228] new_sync_write+0x104/0x180
> [743079.843231] ? send_command+0xe0/0x270
> [743079.843233] vfs_write+0x247/0x2a0
> [743079.843234] ksys_write+0xa7/0xe0
> [743079.843235] ? fpregs_assert_state_consistent+0x23/0x50
> [743079.843238] __x64_sys_write+0x1a/0x20
> [743079.843239] do_syscall_64+0x3a/0x80
> [743079.843241] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
>
> Signed-off-by: duguowei <duguowei@...omi.com>
> ---
> fs/erofs/utils.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/utils.c b/fs/erofs/utils.c
> index ec9a1d780dc1..9eca13a7e594 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/utils.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/utils.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,8 @@ static unsigned int shrinker_run_no;
>
> /* protects the mounted 'erofs_sb_list' */
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(erofs_sb_list_lock);
> +/* sequence each shrink task */
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(erofs_sb_shrink_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(erofs_sb_list);
>
> void erofs_shrinker_register(struct super_block *sb)
> @@ -226,13 +228,14 @@ static unsigned long erofs_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> struct list_head *p;
>
> unsigned long nr = sc->nr_to_scan;
> - unsigned int run_no;
> unsigned long freed = 0;
>
> + spin_lock(&erofs_sb_shrink_lock);
Btw, we cannot make the whole shrinker under one spin_lock.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists