Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-78078-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <2744dd57-e76e-4d80-851a-02898f87f9be@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:51:15 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: avoid scanning all partial slabs in get_slabinfo()
To: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
 "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@linux.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
 Jianfeng Wang <jianfeng.w.wang@oracle.com>, penberg@kernel.org,
 iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
References: <20240215211457.32172-1-jianfeng.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <6b58d81f-8e8f-3732-a5d4-40eece75013b@google.com>
 <fee76a21-fbc5-4ad8-b4bf-ba8a8e7cee8f@suse.cz>
 <55ccc92a-79fa-42d2-97d8-b514cf00823b@linux.dev>
 <6daf88a2-84c2-5ba4-853c-c38cca4a03cb@linux.com>
 <e924c39b-7636-4c34-bfe9-603cf07c21d3@linux.dev>
 <b8f393fb-2b1d-213c-9301-35d4ffca1f50@linux.com>
 <347b870e-a7d5-45df-84ba-4eee37b74ff6@linux.dev>
 <1a952209-fa22-4439-af27-bf102c7d742b@suse.cz>
 <cce26aef-ab3e-447b-8b33-5ecd78bf747d@linux.dev>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <cce26aef-ab3e-447b-8b33-5ecd78bf747d@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/23/24 10:37, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2024/2/23 17:24, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is a better direction! We can use RCU list if slab can be freed by RCU.
>> 
>> Often we remove slab from the partial list for other purposes than freeing -
>> i.e. to become a cpu (partial) slab, and that can't be handled by a rcu
>> callback nor can we wait a grace period in such situations.
> 
> IMHO, only free_slab() need to use call_rcu() to delay free the slab,
> other paths like taking partial slabs from node partial list don't need
> to wait for RCU grace period.
> 
> All we want is safely lockless iterate over the node partial list, right?

Yes, and for that there's the "list_head slab_list", which is in union with
"struct slab *next" and "int slabs" for the cpu partial list. So if we
remove a slab from the partial list and rewrite the list_head for the
partial list purposes, it will break the lockless iterators, right? We would
have to wait a grace period between unlinking the slab from partial list (so
no new iterators can reach it), and reusing the list_head (so we are sure
the existing iterators stopped looking at our slab).

Maybe there's more advanced rcu tricks but this is my basic understanding
how this works.

> Thanks.