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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/ttm: optimize the pool shrinker a bit v2
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, vbabka@suse.cz, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        ray.huang@amd.com
References: <20210415115624.2904-1-christian.koenig@amd.com>
 <20210415115624.2904-2-christian.koenig@amd.com>
 <20210415133310.1ee9df70a9eb887be937c3a3@linux-foundation.org>
 <57572373-d68c-80de-7f9e-c04239d1b050@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51fe2c43-4f05-5727-1680-b6907d652630@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:15:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57572373-d68c-80de-7f9e-c04239d1b050@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

Just a gentle ping?

Are you ok with this explanation Andrew or should I look for a different 
approach?

Thanks,
Christian.

Am 16.04.21 um 09:08 schrieb Christian König:
> Am 15.04.21 um 22:33 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:56:24 +0200 "Christian König" 
>> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -530,6 +525,11 @@ void ttm_pool_fini(struct ttm_pool *pool)
>>>               for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
>>> ttm_pool_type_fini(&pool->caching[i].orders[j]);
>>>       }
>>> +
>>> +    /* We removed the pool types from the LRU, but we need to also 
>>> make sure
>>> +     * that no shrinker is concurrently freeing pages from the pool.
>>> +     */
>>> +    sync_shrinkers();
>> It isn't immediately clear to me how this works. ttm_pool_fini() has
>> already freed all the pages hasn't it?  So why would it care if some
>> shrinkers are still playing with the pages?
>
> Yes ttm_pool_fini() has freed up all pages which had been in the pool 
> when the function was called.
>
> But the problem is it is possible that a parallel running shrinker has 
> taken a page from the pool and is in the process of freeing it up.
>
> When I return here the pool structure and especially the device 
> structure are freed while the parallel running shrinker is still using 
> them.
>
> I could go for a design where we have one shrinker per device instead, 
> but that would put a bit to much pressure on the pool in my opinion.
>
>> Or is it the case that ttm_pool_fini() is assuming that there will be
>> some further action against these pages, which requires that shrinkers
>> no longer be accessing the pages and which further assumes that future
>> shrinker invocations will not be able to look up these pages?
>>
>> IOW, a bit more explanation about the dynamics here would help!
>
> Sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English and sometimes still have a 
> hard time explaining things.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.