Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2103301640240.2584@eggly.anvils>
 <CALvZod7PQ3=1nDUKVo33o5GGh-feGNM2LyekSys-U2-kOYbrTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkqDAOUjhV0-M-Mv6z7yKHk-WmuHHwJse4vvo82nJscTcA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.2103311340080.1201@eggly.anvils>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2103311340080.1201@eggly.anvils>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:14:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqg_AxD12rcgNy0Va_X2LTJ79FRuOhuLSb=RTkfDbH+EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] mm: vmscan: fix shrinker_rwsem in free_shrinker_info()
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        lkp@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:13 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:54 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:44 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lockdep warns mm/vmscan.c: suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
> > > > when free_shrinker_info() is called from mem_cgroup_css_free(): there it
> > > > is called with no locking, whereas alloc_shrinker_info() calls it with
> > > > down_write of shrinker_rwsem - which seems appropriate.  Rearrange that
> > > > so free_shrinker_info() can manage the shrinker_rwsem for itself.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210317140615.GB28839@xsang-OptiPlex-9020
> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > > > Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Sorry, I've made no attempt to work out precisely where in the series
> > > > the locking went missing, nor tried to fit this in as a fix on top of
> > > > mm-vmscan-add-shrinker_info_protected-helper.patch
> > > > which Oliver reported (and which you notated in mmotm's "series" file).
> > > > This patch just adds the fix to the end of the series, after
> > > > mm-vmscan-shrink-deferred-objects-proportional-to-priority.patch
> > >
> > > The patch "mm: vmscan: add shrinker_info_protected() helper" replaces
> > > rcu_dereference_protected(shrinker_info, true) with
> > > rcu_dereference_protected(shrinker_info,
> > > lockdep_is_held(&shrinker_rwsem)).
> > >
> > > I think we don't really need shrinker_rwsem in free_shrinker_info()
> > > which is called from css_free(). The bits of the map have already been
> > > 'reparented' in css_offline. I think we can remove
> > > lockdep_is_held(&shrinker_rwsem) for free_shrinker_info().
> >
> > Thanks, Hugh and Shakeel. I missed the report.
> >
> > I think Shakeel is correct, shrinker_rwsem is not required in css_free
> > path so Shakeel's proposal should be able to fix it.
>
> Yes, looking at it again, I am sure that Shakeel is right, and
> that my patch was overkill - no need for shrinker_rwsem there.
>
> Whether it's RCU-safe to free the info there, I have not reviewed at
> all: but shrinker_rwsem would not help even if there were an issue.
>
> > I prepared a patch:
>
> Unsigned, white-space damaged, so does not apply.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 64bf07cc20f2..7348c26d4cac 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -251,7 +251,12 @@ void free_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >         for_each_node(nid) {
> >                 pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
> > -               info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
> > +               /*
> > +                * Don't use shrinker_info_protected() helper since
> > +                * free_shrinker_info() could be called by css_free()
> > +                * without holding shrinker_rwsem.
> > +                */
>
> Just because I mis-inferred from the use of shrinker_info_protected()
> that shrinker_rwsem was needed here, is no reason to add that comment:
> imagine how unhelpfully bigger the kernel source would be if we added
> a comment everywhere I had misunderstood something!

Yes, I agree the comment may incur more confusion. Better remove it.

>
> > +               info = rcu_dereference_protected(pn->shrinker_info, true);
> >                 kvfree(info);
> >                 rcu_assign_pointer(pn->shrinker_info, NULL);
> >         }
>
> That does it, but I bikeshedded with myself in the encyclopaedic
> rcupdate.h, and decided rcu_replace_pointer(pn->shrinker_info, NULL, true)
> would be best.  But now see that patch won't fit so well into your series,
> and I can't spend more time writing up a justification for it.
>
> I think Andrew should simply delete my fix patch from his queue,
> and edit out the
> @@ -232,7 +239,7 @@ void free_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgrou
>
>         for_each_node(nid) {
>                 pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
> -               info = rcu_dereference_protected(pn->shrinker_info, true);
> +               info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
>                 kvfree(info);
>                 rcu_assign_pointer(pn->shrinker_info, NULL);
>         }
> hunk from your mm-vmscan-add-shrinker_info_protected-helper.patch
> which will then restore free_shrinker_info() to what you propose above.

Yes. I saw Andrew already had this fix in -mm tree.

>
> Thanks,
> Hugh