From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 05/11] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker is registered
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:37:23 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ff0d1ed1-e2ae-3e0c-e780-e8d2287cc99b@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkqZ7Hmo7DSQijrgoKaDQDaOb3+tTGeJ2xU8drFKZ6jv4A@mail.gmail.com>
On 11.01.2021 21:17, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:22 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06.01.2021 01:58, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> Currently registered shrinker is indicated by non-NULL shrinker->nr_deferred.
>>> This approach is fine with nr_deferred at the shrinker level, but the following
>>> patches will move MEMCG_AWARE shrinkers' nr_deferred to memcg level, so their
>>> shrinker->nr_deferred would always be NULL. This would prevent the shrinkers
>>> from unregistering correctly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/shrinker.h | 7 ++++---
>>> mm/vmscan.c | 13 +++++++++----
>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
>>> index 0f80123650e2..1eac79ce57d4 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
>>> @@ -79,13 +79,14 @@ struct shrinker {
>>> #define DEFAULT_SEEKS 2 /* A good number if you don't know better. */
>>>
>>> /* Flags */
>>> -#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE (1 << 0)
>>> -#define SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE (1 << 1)
>>> +#define SHRINKER_REGISTERED (1 << 0)
>>> +#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE (1 << 1)
>>> +#define SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE (1 << 2)
>>> /*
>>> * It just makes sense when the shrinker is also MEMCG_AWARE for now,
>>> * non-MEMCG_AWARE shrinker should not have this flag set.
>>> */
>>> -#define SHRINKER_NONSLAB (1 << 2)
>>> +#define SHRINKER_NONSLAB (1 << 3)
>>>
>>> extern int prealloc_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker);
>>> extern void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker);
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> index 8da765a85569..9761c7c27412 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -494,6 +494,7 @@ void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>> if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
>>> idr_replace(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, shrinker->id);
>>> #endif
>>> + shrinker->flags |= SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
>>
>> In case of we introduce this new flag, we should kill old flag SHRINKER_REGISTERING,
>> which are not needed anymore (we should you the new flag instead of that).
>
> The only think that I'm confused with is the check in
> shrink_slab_memcg, it does:
>
> shrinker = idr_find(&shrinker_idr, i);
> if (unlikely(!shrinker || shrinker == SHRINKER_REGISTERING)) {
>
> When allocating idr, the shrinker is associated with
> SHRINKER_REGISTERING. But, shrink_slab_memcg does acquire read
> shrinker_rwsem, and idr_alloc is called with holding write
> shrinker_rwsem, so I'm supposed shrink_slab_memcg should never see
> shrinker is registering.
After prealloc_shrinker() shrinker is visible for shrink_slab_memcg().
This is the moment shrink_slab_memcg() sees SHRINKER_REGISTERED.
> If so it seems easy to remove
> SHRINKER_REGISTERING.
>
> We just need change that check to:
> !shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED)
>
>>> up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -513,13 +514,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_shrinker);
>>> */
>>> void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>> {
>>> - if (!shrinker->nr_deferred)
>>> - return;
>>> - if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
>>> - unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
>>> down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>
>> I do not think there are some users which registration may race with unregistration.
>> So, I think we should check SHRINKER_REGISTERED unlocked similar to we used to check
>> shrinker->nr_deferred unlocked.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>>
>>> + if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED)) {
>>> + up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> list_del(&shrinker->list);
>>> + shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
>>> up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>> +
>>> + if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
>>> + unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
>>> kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
>>> shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-11 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-05 22:58 [RFC v3 PATCH 0/11] Make shrinker's nr_deferred memcg aware Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 01/11] mm: vmscan: use nid from shrink_control for tracepoint Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 02/11] mm: vmscan: consolidate shrinker_maps handling code Yang Shi
2021-01-07 0:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-07 17:29 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 19:00 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 19:37 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-11 19:43 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 03/11] mm: vmscan: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation Yang Shi
2021-01-06 9:54 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 17:08 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 17:33 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:57 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 21:33 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-12 21:23 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-13 18:16 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 04/11] mm: vmscan: remove memcg_shrinker_map_size Yang Shi
2021-01-06 10:15 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 17:44 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-13 23:48 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 05/11] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker is registered Yang Shi
2021-01-06 10:21 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:17 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 21:37 ` Kirill Tkhai [this message]
2021-01-12 20:58 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 06/11] mm: memcontrol: rename shrinker_map to shrinker_info Yang Shi
2021-01-06 11:38 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:19 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 07/11] mm: vmscan: add per memcg shrinker nr_deferred Yang Shi
2021-01-06 11:06 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:24 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-13 23:30 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 08/11] mm: vmscan: use per memcg nr_deferred of shrinker Yang Shi
2021-01-07 0:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-07 17:34 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 09/11] mm: vmscan: don't need allocate shrinker->nr_deferred for memcg aware shrinkers Yang Shi
2021-01-06 11:15 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:40 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-11 21:57 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 10/11] mm: memcontrol: reparent nr_deferred when memcg offline Yang Shi
2021-01-06 11:34 ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-11 18:43 ` Yang Shi
2021-01-05 22:58 ` [v3 PATCH 11/11] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional to priority Yang Shi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ff0d1ed1-e2ae-3e0c-e780-e8d2287cc99b@virtuozzo.com \
--to=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox