Message-ID: <684fab83-a506-33fc-4b24-bdf0902e2397@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2023 12:09:52 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: vmscan: make global slab shrink lockless
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, tkhai@ya.ru, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        shakeelb@google.com, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, david@redhat.com, shy828301@gmail.com,
        sultan@kerneltoast.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paulmck@kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230223132725.11685-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <20230223132725.11685-3-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <Y/eFtTO+8kXlsW7x@optiplex-fbsd> <Y/eIMXtEJVszprNb@optiplex-fbsd>
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y/eIMXtEJVszprNb@optiplex-fbsd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/2/23 23:37, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:26:45AM -0500, Rafael Aquini wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:27:20PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>> The shrinker_rwsem is a global lock in shrinkers subsystem,
>>> it is easy to cause blocking in the following cases:
>>>
>>> a. the write lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long.
>>>     For example, there are many memcgs in the system, which
>>>     causes some paths to hold locks and traverse it for too
>>>     long. (e.g. expand_shrinker_info())
>>> b. the read lock of shrinker_rwsem was held for too long,
>>>     and a writer came at this time. Then this writer will be
>>>     forced to wait and block all subsequent readers.
>>>     For example:
>>>     - be scheduled when the read lock of shrinker_rwsem is
>>>       held in do_shrink_slab()
>>>     - some shrinker are blocked for too long. Like the case
>>>       mentioned in the patchset[1].
>>>
>>> Therefore, many times in history ([2],[3],[4],[5]), some
>>> people wanted to replace shrinker_rwsem reader with SRCU,
>>> but they all gave up because SRCU was not unconditionally
>>> enabled.
>>>
>>> But now, since commit 1cd0bd06093c ("rcu: Remove CONFIG_SRCU"),
>>> the SRCU is unconditionally enabled. So it's time to use
>>> SRCU to protect readers who previously held shrinker_rwsem.
>>>
>>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191129214541.3110-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com/
>>> [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/1437080113.3596.2.camel@stgolabs.net/
>>> [3]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1510609063-3327-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/
>>> [4]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
>>> [5]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210927074823.5825-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>> ---
>>>   mm/vmscan.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
>>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> index 9f895ca6216c..02987a6f95d1 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
>>>   
>>>   LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>>>   DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>>> +DEFINE_SRCU(shrinker_srcu);
>>>   
>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>>>   static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>> @@ -706,7 +707,7 @@ void free_prealloced_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>>   void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>>>   {
>>>   	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>
>> I think you could revert the rwsem back to a simple mutex, now.
>>
> 
> NVM, that's exactly what patch 7 does. :)

Yeah. :)

> 
>   
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Qi