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;
Date:   Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:35:14 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hanging shrinker management on long
 do_shrink_slab
Message-ID: <20191204083514.GC25242@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20191129214541.3110-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191129214541.3110-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 30-11-19 00:45:41, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
> We have a problem that shrinker_rwsem can be held for a long time for
> read in shrink_slab, at the same time any process which is trying to
> manage shrinkers hangs.
> 
> The shrinker_rwsem is taken in shrink_slab while traversing shrinker_list.
> It tries to shrink something on nfs (hard) but nfs server is dead at
> these moment already and rpc will never succeed. Generally any shrinker
> can take significant time to do_shrink_slab, so it's a bad idea to hold
> the list lock here.

Yes, this is a known problem and people have already tried to address it
in the past. Have you checked previous attempts? SRCU based one
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain
but I believe there were others (I only had this one in my notes).
Please make sure to Cc Dave Chinner when posting a next version because
he had some concerns about the change of the behavior.

> We have a similar problem in shrink_slab_memcg, except that we are
> traversing shrinker_map+shrinker_idr there.
> 
> The idea of the patch is to inc a refcount to the chosen shrinker so it
> won't disappear and release shrinker_rwsem while we are in
> do_shrink_slab, after that we will reacquire shrinker_rwsem, dec
> the refcount and continue the traversal.

The reference count part makes sense to me. RCU role needs a better
explanation. Also do you have any reason to not use completion for
the final step? Openconding essentially the same concept sounds a bit
awkward to me.

> We also need a wait_queue so that unregister_shrinker can wait for the
> refcnt to become zero. Only after these we can safely remove the
> shrinker from list and idr, and free the shrinker.
[...]
>   crash> bt ...
>   PID: 18739  TASK: ...  CPU: 3   COMMAND: "bash"
>    #0 [...] __schedule at ...
>    #1 [...] schedule at ...
>    #2 [...] rpc_wait_bit_killable at ... [sunrpc]
>    #3 [...] __wait_on_bit at ...
>    #4 [...] out_of_line_wait_on_bit at ...
>    #5 [...] _nfs4_proc_delegreturn at ... [nfsv4]
>    #6 [...] nfs4_proc_delegreturn at ... [nfsv4]
>    #7 [...] nfs_do_return_delegation at ... [nfsv4]
>    #8 [...] nfs4_evict_inode at ... [nfsv4]
>    #9 [...] evict at ...
>   #10 [...] dispose_list at ...
>   #11 [...] prune_icache_sb at ...
>   #12 [...] super_cache_scan at ...
>   #13 [...] do_shrink_slab at ...

Are NFS people aware of this? Because this is simply not acceptable
behavior. Memory reclaim cannot be block indefinitely or for a long
time. There must be a way to simply give up if the underlying inode
cannot be reclaimed.

I still have to think about the proposed solution. It sounds a bit over
complicated to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs