[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46020fa1-d55b-c719-3bde-df66c93cd0d0@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:36:00 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>
Cc: sultan@...neltoast.com, dave@...olabs.net,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, paulmck@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: make memcg slab shrink lockless
On 2023/2/23 03:58, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 22.02.2023 10:32, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/2/22 05:28, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> On 20.02.2023 12:16, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> <...>
>>>> void reparent_shrinker_deferred(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>> {
>>>> - int i, nid;
>>>> + int i, nid, srcu_idx;
>>>> long nr;
>>>> struct mem_cgroup *parent;
>>>> struct shrinker_info *child_info, *parent_info;
>>>> @@ -429,16 +443,16 @@ void reparent_shrinker_deferred(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>> parent = root_mem_cgroup;
>>>> /* Prevent from concurrent shrinker_info expand */
>>>> - down_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>>> + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>
>>> Don't we still have to be protected against parallel expand_one_shrinker_info()?
>>>
>>> It looks like parent->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info pointer may be changed in expand*
>>> right after we've dereferenced it here.
>>
>> Hi Kirill,
>>
>> Oh, indeed. We may wrongly reparent the child's nr_deferred to the old
>> parent's nr_deferred (it is about to be freed by call_srcu).
>>
>> The reparent_shrinker_deferred() will only be called on the offline
>> path (not a hotspot path), so we may be able to use shrinker_mutex
>> introduced later for protection. What do you think?
>
> It looks good for me. One more thing I'd analyzed is whether we want to have
> is two reparent_shrinker_deferred() are executing in parallel.
I see that mem_cgroup_css_offline() is already protected by
cgroup_mutex, so maybe shrinker_mutex is enough here. :)
>
> Possible, we should leave rwsem there as it was used before..
>
>>>
>>>> for_each_node(nid) {
>>>> - child_info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
>>>> - parent_info = shrinker_info_protected(parent, nid);
>>>> + child_info = shrinker_info_srcu(memcg, nid);
>>>> + parent_info = shrinker_info_srcu(parent, nid);
>>>> for (i = 0; i < shrinker_nr_max; i++) {
>>>> nr = atomic_long_read(&child_info->nr_deferred[i]);
>>>> atomic_long_add(nr, &parent_info->nr_deferred[i]);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> - up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>>> + srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>> }
>>>> static bool cgroup_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
>>>> @@ -891,15 +905,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> {
>>>> struct shrinker_info *info;
>>>> unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
>>>> + int srcu_idx;
>>>> int i;
>>>> if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
>>>> return 0;
>>>> - if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> - info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
>>>> + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> + info = shrinker_info_srcu(memcg, nid);
>>>> if (unlikely(!info))
>>>> goto unlock;
>>>> @@ -949,14 +962,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
>>>> }
>>>> freed += ret;
>>>> -
>>>> - if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
>>>> - freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>> - break;
>>>> - }
>>>> }
>>>> unlock:
>>>> - up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>>> + srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>> return freed;
>>>> }
>>>> #else /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists