netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 03/47] mm: shrinker: add infrastructure for dynamically allocating shrinker

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:01:06 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...morbit.com, tkhai@...ru,
 vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, djwong@...nel.org,
 brauner@...nel.org, paulmck@...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, x86@...nel.org,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
 linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
 cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/47] mm: shrinker: add infrastructure for dynamically
 allocating shrinker

Hi Peter,

On 2023/7/24 20:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 05:43:10PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
>> +void shrinker_unregister(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>> +{
>> +	struct dentry *debugfs_entry;
>> +	int debugfs_id;
>> +
>> +	if (!shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>> +	list_del(&shrinker->list);
>> +	shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
>> +	if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
>> +		unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
>> +	debugfs_entry = shrinker_debugfs_detach(shrinker, &debugfs_id);
>> +	up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>> +
>> +	shrinker_debugfs_remove(debugfs_entry, debugfs_id);
> 
> Should there not be an rcu_barrier() right about here?

The shrinker_debugfs_remove() will wait for debugfs_file_put() to
return, so when running here, all shrinker debugfs operations have
been completed. And the slab shrink will hold the read lock of
shrinker_rwsem to traverse the shrinker_list, so when we hold the
write lock of shrinker_rwsem to delete the shrinker from the
shrinker_list, the shrinker will not be executed again.

So I think there is no need to add a rcu_barrier() here. Please let
me know if I missed something.

Thanks,
Qi

> 
>> +
>> +	kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
>> +	shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
>> +
>> +	kfree(shrinker);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrinker_unregister);
>