| 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: <8049b6ed-435f-b518-f947-5516a514aec2@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 12:00:21 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
Cc: 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,
paulmck@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: vmscan: make global slab shrink lockless
On 2023/2/24 02:24, 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.
Hi Sultan,
IIUC, for unregister_shrinker(), the wait time is hardly longer with
SRCU than with shrinker_rwsem before.
And I just did a simple test. After using the script in cover letter to
increase the shrink_slab hotspot, I did umount 1k times at the same
time, and then I used bpftrace to measure the time consumption of
unregister_shrinker() as follows:
bpftrace -e 'kprobe:unregister_shrinker { @start[tid] = nsecs; }
kretprobe:unregister_shrinker /@...rt[tid]/ { @ns[comm] = hist(nsecs -
@start[tid]); delete(@start[tid]); }'
@ns[umount]:
[16K, 32K) 3 |
|
[32K, 64K) 66 |@@@@@@@@@@
|
[64K, 128K) 32 |@@@@@
|
[128K, 256K) 22 |@@@
|
[256K, 512K) 48 |@@@@@@@
|
[512K, 1M) 19 |@@@
|
[1M, 2M) 131 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
[2M, 4M) 313
|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[4M, 8M) 302
|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[8M, 16M) 55 |@@@@@@@@@
I see that the highest time-consuming of unregister_shrinker() is
between 8ms and 16ms, which feels tolerable?
Thanks,
Qi
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Sultan
>
> [1] https://github.com/kerneltoast/android_kernel_google_floral/commit/012378f3173a82d2333d3ae7326691544301e76a
>
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists