[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93c36097-5266-4fc5-84a8-d770ab344361@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:55:28 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com,
tkhai@...ru, vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
djwong@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
steven.price@....com, cel@...nel.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org,
yujie.liu@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 42/45] mm: shrinker: make global slab shrink lockless
Hi,
On 2023/12/6 15:47, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:57 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
>
>> - if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
>> - goto out;
>> -
>> - list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>> + /*
>> + * lockless algorithm of global shrink.
>> + *
>> + * In the unregistration setp, the shrinker will be freed asynchronously
>> + * via RCU after its refcount reaches 0. So both rcu_read_lock() and
>> + * shrinker_try_get() can be used to ensure the existence of the shrinker.
>> + *
>> + * So in the global shrink:
>> + * step 1: use rcu_read_lock() to guarantee existence of the shrinker
>> + * and the validity of the shrinker_list walk.
>> + * step 2: use shrinker_try_get() to try get the refcount, if successful,
>> + * then the existence of the shrinker can also be guaranteed,
>> + * so we can release the RCU lock to do do_shrink_slab() that
>> + * may sleep.
>> + * step 3: *MUST* to reacquire the RCU lock before calling shrinker_put(),
>> + * which ensures that neither this shrinker nor the next shrinker
>> + * will be freed in the next traversal operation.
>
> Hello, Qi, Andrew, Paul,
>
> I wonder know how RCU can ensure the lifespan of the next shrinker.
> it seems it is diverged from the common pattern usage of RCU+reference.
>
> cpu1:
> rcu_read_lock();
> shrinker_try_get(this_shrinker);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> cpu2: shrinker_free(this_shrinker);
> cpu2: shrinker_free(next_shrinker); and free the memory of next_shrinker
> cpu2: when shrinker_free(next_shrinker), no one updates this_shrinker's next
> cpu2: since this_shrinker has been removed first.
No, this_shrinker will not be removed from the shrinker_list until the
last refcount is released. See below:
> rcu_read_lock();
> shrinker_put(this_shrinker);
CPU 1 CPU 2
--> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&shrinker->refcount))
complete(&shrinker->done);
wait_for_completion(&shrinker->done);
list_del_rcu(&shrinker->list);
> travel to the freed next_shrinker.
>
> a quick simple fix:
>
> // called with other references other than RCU (i.e. refcount)
> static inline rcu_list_deleted(struct list_head *entry)
> {
> // something like this:
> return entry->prev == LIST_POISON2;
> }
>
> // in the loop
> if (rcu_list_deleted(&shrinker->list)) {
> shrinker_put(shrinker);
> goto restart;
> }
> rcu_read_lock();
> shrinker_put(shrinker);
>
> Thanks
> Lai
>
>> + * step 4: do shrinker_put() paired with step 2 to put the refcount,
>> + * if the refcount reaches 0, then wake up the waiter in
>> + * shrinker_free() by calling complete().
>> + */
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>> struct shrink_control sc = {
>> .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>> .nid = nid,
>> .memcg = memcg,
>> };
>>
>> + if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> +
>> ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
>> 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;
>> - }
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + shrinker_put(shrinker);
>> }
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists