| 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: <5663b349-8f6f-874a-eb9b-63d3179dcab7@ya.ru>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:17:42 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 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 25.02.2023 18:57, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/2/25 23:30, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 25.02.2023 11:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2023/2/25 05:14, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>> On 25.02.2023 00:02, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>> On 24.02.2023 07:00, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Hi Kirill,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fundamental difference is that before the patchset this for_each_set_bit() iteration could be broken in the middle
>>>>> of two do_shrink_slab() calls, while after the patchset we can leave for_each_set_bit() only after visiting all set bits.
>>>
>>> After looking at the git log[1], I saw that we originally introduced
>>> rwsem_is_contendent() here to aviod blocking register_shrinker(),
>>> not unregister_shrinker().
>>>
>>> So I am curious, do we really care about the speed of
>>> unregister_shrinker()?
>>
>> My opinion is that for general reasons we should avoid long unbreakable actions in kernel. Especially when they may be called
>> synchronous from userspace.
>
> Got it.
>
> And maybe you missed the previous comments below.
Oh, I really missed them!
>>
>> We even have this as generic rule. See check_hung_task().
>>
>> Before, the longest sleep in unregister_shrinker() was a sleep waiting for single longest do_shrink_slab().
>>
>> After the patch the longest sleep will be a sleep waiting for all do_shrink_slab() calls (all set bits in shrinker_info).
>>
>>> And after using SRCU, register_shrinker() will not be blocked by slab
>>> shrink at all.
>>>
>>> [1]. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/e496612
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Using only synchronize_srcu_expedited() won't help here.
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is we should restore a check similar to the rwsem_is_contendent() check that we had before. Something like
>>>
>>> If we really care about the speed of unregister_shrinker() like
>>> register_shrinker(), I think this is a good idea. This guarantees
>>> at least the speed of the unregister_shrinker() is not deteriorated. :)
>>>
>>>>> the below on top of your patchset merged into appropriate patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> index 27ef9946ae8a..50e7812468ec 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> @@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
>>>>> LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>>>>> DEFINE_MUTEX(shrinker_mutex);
>>>>> DEFINE_SRCU(shrinker_srcu);
>>>>> +static atomic_t shrinker_srcu_generation = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>>>>> static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>>>> @@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>>>> debugfs_entry = shrinker_debugfs_remove(shrinker);
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
>>>>> + atomic_inc(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>>> synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>>> debugfs_remove_recursive(debugfs_entry);
>>>>> @@ -799,6 +801,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
>>>>> */
>>>>> void synchronize_shrinkers(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + atomic_inc(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>>> synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>>> }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(synchronize_shrinkers);
>>>>> @@ -908,7 +911,7 @@ 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 srcu_idx, generation;
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
>>>>> @@ -919,6 +922,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>> if (unlikely(!info))
>>>>> goto unlock;
>>>>> + generation = atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>>> for_each_set_bit(i, info->map, info->map_nr_max) {
>>>>> struct shrink_control sc = {
>>>>> .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>>>>> @@ -965,6 +969,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>> set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
>>>>> }
>>>>> freed += ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation) != generation) {
>>>>> + freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> unlock:
>>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>>> @@ -1004,7 +1013,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>> {
>>>>> unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
>>>>> struct shrinker *shrinker;
>>>>> - int srcu_idx;
>>>>> + int srcu_idx, generation;
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * The root memcg might be allocated even though memcg is disabled
>>>>> @@ -1017,6 +1026,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>> return shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_mask, nid, memcg, priority);
>>>>> srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>>> + generation = atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>>> list_for_each_entry_srcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list,
>>>>> srcu_read_lock_held(&shrinker_srcu)) {
>>>>> @@ -1030,6 +1040,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>> if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
>>>>> ret = 0;
>>>>> freed += ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation) != generation) {
>>>>> + freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>>
>>>> Even more, for memcg shrinkers we may unlock SRCU and continue iterations from the same shrinker id:
>>>
>>> Maybe we can also do this for global slab shrink? Like below:
>
> How about this?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> index ffddbd204259..9d8c53075298 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>> int priority)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
>>> - struct shrinker *shrinker;
>>> + struct shrinker *shrinker = NULL;
>>> int srcu_idx, generation;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -1025,11 +1025,15 @@ 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);
>>>
>>> +again:
>>> srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>
>>> generation = atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>> - list_for_each_entry_srcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list,
>>> - srcu_read_lock_held(&shrinker_srcu)) {
>>> + if (!shrinker)
>>> + shrinker = list_entry_rcu(shrinker_list.next, struct shrinker, list);
>>> + else
>>> + shrinker = list_entry_rcu(shrinker->list.next, struct shrinker, list);
>>> + list_for_each_entry_from_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>>> struct shrink_control sc = {
>>> .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>>> .nid = nid,
>>> @@ -1042,8 +1046,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>> freed += ret;
>>>
>>> if (atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation) != generation) {
>>> - freed = freed ? : 1;
>>> - break;
>>> + srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
After SRCU in unlocked we can't believe @shrinker anymore. So, above list_entry_rcu(shrinker->list.next)
dereferences some random memory.
>>> + cond_resched();
>>> + goto again;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> index 27ef9946ae8a..0b197bba1257 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> @@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
>>>> LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>>>> DEFINE_MUTEX(shrinker_mutex);
>>>> DEFINE_SRCU(shrinker_srcu);
>>>> +static atomic_t shrinker_srcu_generation = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>>>> static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>>> @@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>>> debugfs_entry = shrinker_debugfs_remove(shrinker);
>>>> mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
>>>> + atomic_inc(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>> synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> debugfs_remove_recursive(debugfs_entry);
>>>> @@ -799,6 +801,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
>>>> */
>>>> void synchronize_shrinkers(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + atomic_inc(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>> synchronize_srcu(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(synchronize_shrinkers);
>>>> @@ -908,18 +911,19 @@ 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;
>>>> + int srcu_idx, generation;
>>>> + int i = 0;
>>>> if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
>>>> return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> +again:
>>>> srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> info = shrinker_info_srcu(memcg, nid);
>>>> if (unlikely(!info))
>>>> goto unlock;
>>>> - for_each_set_bit(i, info->map, info->map_nr_max) {
>>>> + generation = atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>> + for_each_set_bit_from(i, info->map, info->map_nr_max) {
>>>> struct shrink_control sc = {
>>>> .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>>>> .nid = nid,
>>>> @@ -965,6 +969,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
>>>> }
>>>> freed += ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation) != generation) {
>>>> + srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>
>>> Maybe we can add the following code here, so as to avoid repeating the
>>> current id and avoid triggering softlockup:
>>>
>>> i++;
This is OK.
>>> cond_resched();
Possible, existing cond_resched() in do_shrink_slab() is enough.
> And this. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Qi
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qi
>>>
>>>> + goto again;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>> unlock:
>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>> @@ -1004,7 +1013,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> {
>>>> unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
>>>> struct shrinker *shrinker;
>>>> - int srcu_idx;
>>>> + int srcu_idx, generation;
>>>> /*
>>>> * The root memcg might be allocated even though memcg is disabled
>>>> @@ -1017,6 +1026,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> return shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_mask, nid, memcg, priority);
>>>> srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> + generation = atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation);
>>>> list_for_each_entry_srcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list,
>>>> srcu_read_lock_held(&shrinker_srcu)) {
>>>> @@ -1030,6 +1040,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>> if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
>>>> ret = 0;
>>>> freed += ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (atomic_read(&shrinker_srcu_generation) != generation) {
>>>> + freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists