Re: [PATCH v4 46/48] mm: shrinker: make memcg slab shrink lockless
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Date: 2023-08-08 02:44:37
Also in:
dm-devel, dri-devel, kvm, linux-arm-msm, linux-bcache, linux-btrfs, linux-ext4, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, linux-nfs, linux-raid, linux-xfs, lkml, rcu, virtualization, xen-devel
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 07:09:34PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
Like global slab shrink, this commit also uses refcount+RCU method to make memcg slab shrink lockless.
This patch does random code cleanups amongst the actual RCU changes. Can you please move the cleanups to a spearate patch to reduce the noise in this one?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/mm/shrinker.c b/mm/shrinker.c index d318f5621862..fee6f62904fb 100644 --- a/mm/shrinker.c +++ b/mm/shrinker.c@@ -107,6 +107,12 @@ static struct shrinker_info *shrinker_info_protected(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, lockdep_is_held(&shrinker_rwsem)); } +static struct shrinker_info *shrinker_info_rcu(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, + int nid) +{ + return rcu_dereference(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info); +}
This helper doesn't add value. It doesn't tell me that rcu_read_lock() needs to be held when it is called, for one....
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int new_size, int old_size, int new_nr_max) {@@ -198,7 +204,7 @@ void set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int shrinker_id) struct shrinker_info_unit *unit; rcu_read_lock(); - info = rcu_dereference(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info); + info = shrinker_info_rcu(memcg, nid);
... whilst the original code here was obviously correct.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
unit = info->unit[shriner_id_to_index(shrinker_id)]; if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(shrinker_id >= info->map_nr_max)) { /* Pairs with smp mb in shrink_slab() */@@ -211,7 +217,7 @@ void set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int shrinker_id) static DEFINE_IDR(shrinker_idr); -static int prealloc_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker) +static int shrinker_memcg_alloc(struct shrinker *shrinker)
Cleanups in a separate patch.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -253,10 +258,15 @@ static long xchg_nr_deferred_memcg(int nid, struct shrinker *shrinker, { struct shrinker_info *info; struct shrinker_info_unit *unit; + long nr_deferred; - info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid); + rcu_read_lock(); + info = shrinker_info_rcu(memcg, nid); unit = info->unit[shriner_id_to_index(shrinker->id)]; - return atomic_long_xchg(&unit->nr_deferred[shriner_id_to_offset(shrinker->id)], 0); + nr_deferred = atomic_long_xchg(&unit->nr_deferred[shriner_id_to_offset(shrinker->id)], 0); + rcu_read_unlock(); + + return nr_deferred; }
This adds two rcu_read_lock() sections to every call to do_shrink_slab(). It's not at all clear ifrom any of the other code that do_shrink_slab() now has internal rcu_read_lock() sections....
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -464,18 +480,23 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid, if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) return 0; - if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem)) - return 0; - - info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid); +again: + rcu_read_lock(); + info = shrinker_info_rcu(memcg, nid); if (unlikely(!info)) goto unlock; - for (; index < shriner_id_to_index(info->map_nr_max); index++) { + if (index < shriner_id_to_index(info->map_nr_max)) { struct shrinker_info_unit *unit; unit = info->unit[index]; + /* + * The shrinker_info_unit will not be freed, so we can + * safely release the RCU lock here. + */ + rcu_read_unlock();
Why - what guarantees that the shrinker_info_unit exists at this point? We hold no reference to it, we hold no reference to any shrinker, etc. What provides this existence guarantee?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ for_each_set_bit(offset, unit->map, SHRINKER_UNIT_BITS) { struct shrink_control sc = { .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,@@ -485,12 +506,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid, struct shrinker *shrinker; int shrinker_id = calc_shrinker_id(index, offset); + rcu_read_lock(); shrinker = idr_find(&shrinker_idr, shrinker_id); - if (unlikely(!shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED))) { - if (!shrinker) - clear_bit(offset, unit->map); + if (unlikely(!shrinker || !shrinker_try_get(shrinker))) { + clear_bit(offset, unit->map); + rcu_read_unlock(); continue; } + rcu_read_unlock(); /* Call non-slab shrinkers even though kmem is disabled */ if (!memcg_kmem_online() &&@@ -523,15 +546,20 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid, set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, shrinker_id); } freed += ret; - - if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) { - freed = freed ? : 1; - goto unlock; - } + shrinker_put(shrinker);
Ok, so why is this safe to call without holding the rcu read lock? The global shrinker has to hold the rcu_read_lock() whilst calling shrinker_put() to guarantee the validity of the list next pointer, but we don't hold off RCU here so what guarantees a racing global shrinker walk doesn't trip over this shrinker_put() call dropping the refcount to zero and freeing occuring in a different context...
+ /* + * We have already exited the read-side of rcu critical section + * before calling do_shrink_slab(), the shrinker_info may be + * released in expand_one_shrinker_info(), so reacquire the + * shrinker_info. + */ + index++; + goto again;
With that, what makes the use of shrinker_info in xchg_nr_deferred_memcg() in do_shrink_slab() coherent and valid? -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com