| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:18:10 -0800
From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
tkhai@...ru, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
david@...hat.com, shy828301@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: vmscan: make global slab shrink lockless
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:39:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:24:47AM -0800, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:27:20PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > The shrinker_rwsem is a global lock in shrinkers subsystem,
> > > it is easy to cause blocking in the following cases:
> > >
> > > a. the write lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long.
> > > For example, there are many memcgs in the system, which
> > > causes some paths to hold locks and traverse it for too
> > > long. (e.g. expand_shrinker_info())
> > > b. the read lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long,
> > > and a writer came at this time. Then this writer will be
> > > forced to wait and block all subsequent readers.
> > > For example:
> > > - be scheduled when the read lock of shrinker_rwsem is
> > > held in do_shrink_slab()
> > > - some shrinker are blocked for too long. Like the case
> > > mentioned in the patchset[1].
> > >
> > > Therefore, many times in history ([2],[3],[4],[5]), some
> > > people wanted to replace shrinker_rwsem reader with SRCU,
> > > but they all gave up because SRCU was not unconditionally
> > > enabled.
> > >
> > > But now, since commit 1cd0bd06093c ("rcu: Remove CONFIG_SRCU"),
> > > the SRCU is unconditionally enabled. So it's time to use
> > > SRCU to protect readers who previously held shrinker_rwsem.
> > >
> > > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191129214541.3110-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com/
> > > [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/1437080113.3596.2.camel@stgolabs.net/
> > > [3]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1510609063-3327-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/
> > > [4]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
> > > [5]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210927074823.5825-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/vmscan.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 9f895ca6216c..02987a6f95d1 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
> > >
> > > LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> > > DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> > > +DEFINE_SRCU(shrinker_srcu);
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > > static int shrinker_nr_max;
> > > @@ -706,7 +707,7 @@ 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);
> > > shrinker->flags |= SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
> > > shrinker_debugfs_add(shrinker);
> > > up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > > @@ -760,13 +761,15 @@ void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > > - list_del(&shrinker->list);
> > > + list_del_rcu(&shrinker->list);
> > > shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
> > > if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
> > > unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
> > > debugfs_entry = shrinker_debugfs_remove(shrinker);
> > > up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > >
> > > + synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
> > > +
> > > debugfs_remove_recursive(debugfs_entry);
> > >
> > > kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
> > > @@ -786,6 +789,7 @@ void synchronize_shrinkers(void)
> > > {
> > > down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > > up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > > + synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(synchronize_shrinkers);
> > >
> > > @@ -996,6 +1000,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> > > {
> > > unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
> > > struct shrinker *shrinker;
> > > + int srcu_idx;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * The root memcg might be allocated even though memcg is disabled
> > > @@ -1007,10 +1012,10 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> > > if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > > return shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_mask, nid, memcg, priority);
> > >
> > > - if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
> > > - goto out;
> > > + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
> > >
> > > - list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
> > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list,
> > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&shrinker_srcu)) {
> > > struct shrink_control sc = {
> > > .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
> > > .nid = nid,
> > > @@ -1021,19 +1026,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> > > if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
> > > ret = 0;
> > > freed += ret;
> > > - /*
> > > - * Bail out if someone want to register a new shrinker to
> > > - * prevent the registration from being stalled for long periods
> > > - * by parallel ongoing shrinking.
> > > - */
> > > - if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
> > > - freed = freed ? : 1;
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > > }
> > >
> > > - up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > > -out:
> > > + srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
> > > cond_resched();
> > > return freed;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Qi,
> >
> > A different problem I realized after my old attempt to use SRCU was that the
> > unregister_shrinker() path became quite slow due to the heavy synchronize_srcu()
> > call. Both register_shrinker() *and* unregister_shrinker() are called frequently
> > these days, and SRCU is too unfair to the unregister path IMO.
> >
> > Although I never got around to submitting it, I made a non-SRCU solution [1]
> > that uses fine-grained locking instead, which is fair to both the register path
> > and unregister path. (The patch I've linked is a version of this adapted to an
> > older 4.14 kernel FYI, but it can be reworked for the current kernel.)
> >
> > What do you think about the fine-grained locking approach?
>
> Another approach is to use synchronize_srcu_expedited(), which avoids
> the sleeps that are otherwise used to encourage sharing of grace periods
> among concurrent requests. It might be possible to use call_srcu(),
> but I don't claim to know the shrinker code well enough to say for sure.
Hi Paul,
I don't believe call_srcu() can be used since shrinker users need to be
guaranteed that their shrinkers aren't in use after unregister_shrinker().
Using synchronize_srcu_expedited() sounds like it'd definitely help, though
unregistering a single shrinker would ultimately still require waiting for all
shrinkers to finish running before the grace period can elapse. There can be
many shrinkers and they're not very fast I think.
Thanks,
Sultan
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks,
> > Sultan
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/kerneltoast/android_kernel_google_floral/commit/012378f3173a82d2333d3ae7326691544301e76a
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists