On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-11-17 06:37:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > This patch uses polling loop with short sleep for unregister_shrinker()
> > rather than wait_on_atomic_t(), for we can save reader's cost (plain
> > atomic_dec() compared to atomic_dec_and_test()), we can expect that
> > do_shrink_slab() of unregistering shrinker likely returns shortly, and
> > we can avoid khungtaskd warnings when do_shrink_slab() of unregistering
> > shrinker unexpectedly took so long.
>
> I would use wait_event_interruptible in the remove path rather than the
> short sleep loop which is just too ugly. The shrinker walk would then
> just wake_up the sleeper when the ref. count drops to 0. Two
> synchronize_rcu is quite ugly as well, but I was not able to simplify
> them. I will keep thinking. It just sucks how we cannot follow the
> standard rcu list with dynamically allocated structure pattern here.
It's because the refcount is dropped too early. The refcount protects
the object during shrink, but not for the list_next(), and so you need
an additional grace period just for that part.
I think you could drop the reference count in the next iteration. This
way the list_next() works without requiring a second RCU grace period.
ref count protects the object and its list pointers; RCU protects what
the list pointers point to before we acquire the reference:
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, list) {
if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pos->ref))
continue;
rcu_read_unlock();
if (prev)
atomic_dec(&prev->ref);
prev = pos;
shrink();
rcu_read_lock();
}
rcu_read_unlock();
if (prev)
atomic_dec(&prev->ref);
In any case, Minchan's lock breaking seems way preferable over that
level of headscratching complexity for an unusual case like Shakeel's.
From 1584140987761900211@xxx Wed Nov 15 14:02:53 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583988486620709897
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread