Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190914000743.182739-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20191108193958.205102-1-yuzhao@google.com>
 <20191108193958.205102-2-yuzhao@google.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911092024560.9034@www.lameter.com>
 <20191109230147.GA75074@google.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911092313460.32415@www.lameter.com>
 <20191110184721.GA171640@google.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911111543420.10669@www.lameter.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911111543420.10669@www.lameter.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:15:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CALvZod7sdWpkERPbU9sram2q7PubS4yvkzVibRf+4bPKT1v4XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: avoid slub allocation while holding list_lock
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

+Roman Gushchin

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 7:47 AM Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019, Yu Zhao wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 11:16:28PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > > > >         struct page *page, *h;
> > > > > +       unsigned long *map = bitmap_alloc(oo_objects(s->max), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (!map)
> > > > > +               return;
> > > >
> > > > What would happen if we are trying to allocate from the slab that is
> > > > being shut down? And shouldn't the allocation be conditional (i.e.,
> > > > only when CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y)?
> > >
> > > Kmalloc slabs are never shut down.
> >
> > Maybe I'm not thinking straight -- isn't it what caused the deadlock in
> > the first place?
>
> Well if kmalloc allocations become a problem then we have numerous
> issues all over the kernel to fix.
>
> > Kmalloc slabs can be shut down when memcg is on.
>
> Kmalloc needs to work even during shutdown of a memcg.
>
> Maybe we need to fix memcg to not allocate from the current memcg during
> shutdown?
>
>

Roman recently added reparenting of memcg kmem caches on memcg offline
and can comment in more detail but we don't shutdown a kmem cache
until all the in-fly memcg allocations are resolved. Also the
allocation here does not look like a __GFP_ACCOUNT allocation.