From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED2DC433E6 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A9F64DE9 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:20:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 16A9F64DE9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 57A566B0075; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 52ABA6B0078; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:20:00 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3F1706B007B; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:20:00 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0151.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.151]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2724E6B0075 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF26D181AEF21 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:19:59 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77755695318.29.lip10_4c04e21275a1 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8B9180883B7 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:19:15 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: lip10_4c04e21275a1 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2428 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317F2AD24; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [v5 PATCH 03/11] mm: vmscan: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation To: Yang Shi , guro@fb.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, shakeelb@google.com, david@fromorbit.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210127233345.339910-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <20210127233345.339910-4-shy828301@gmail.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <73c724ba-a1ef-a862-4c31-153d92826f8d@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:19:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210127233345.339910-4-shy828301@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 1/28/21 12:33 AM, Yang Shi wrote: > Since memcg_shrinker_map_size just can be changed under holding shrinker_rwsem > exclusively, the read side can be protected by holding read lock, so it sounds > superfluous to have a dedicated mutex. > > Kirill Tkhai suggested use write lock since: > > * We want the assignment to shrinker_maps is visible for shrink_slab_memcg(). > * The rcu_dereference_protected() dereferrencing in shrink_slab_memcg(), but > in case of we use READ lock in alloc_shrinker_maps(), the dereferrencing > is not actually protected. > * READ lock makes alloc_shrinker_info() racy against memory allocation fail. > alloc_shrinker_info()->free_shrinker_info() may free memory right after > shrink_slab_memcg() dereferenced it. You may say > shrink_slab_memcg()->mem_cgroup_online() protects us from it? Yes, sure, > but this is not the thing we want to remember in the future, since this > spreads modularity. > > And a test with heavy paging workload didn't show write lock makes things worse. > > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka