Commit d27cf2aa authored by Yang Shi's avatar Yang Shi Committed by Linus Torvalds

mm: vmscan: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation

Since memcg_shrinker_map_size just can be changed under holding
shrinker_rwsem exclusively, the read side can be protected by holding read
lock, so it sounds superfluous to have a dedicated mutex.

Kirill Tkhai suggested use write lock since:

  * We want the assignment to shrinker_maps is visible for shrink_slab_memcg().
  * The rcu_dereference_protected() dereferrencing in shrink_slab_memcg(), but
    in case of we use READ lock in alloc_shrinker_maps(), the dereferrencing
    is not actually protected.
  * READ lock makes alloc_shrinker_info() racy against memory allocation fail.
    alloc_shrinker_info()->free_shrinker_info() may free memory right after
    shrink_slab_memcg() dereferenced it. You may say
    shrink_slab_memcg()->mem_cgroup_online() protects us from it? Yes, sure,
    but this is not the thing we want to remember in the future, since this
    spreads modularity.

And a test with heavy paging workload didn't show write lock makes things worse.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210311190845.9708-4-shy828301@gmail.comSigned-off-by: default avatarYang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarVlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: default avatarKirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Acked-by: default avatarRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarShakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 2bfd3637
......@@ -187,7 +187,6 @@ static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
static int memcg_shrinker_map_size;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
static void free_shrinker_map_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
......@@ -201,8 +200,6 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_map(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn;
int nid;
lockdep_assert_held(&memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
for_each_node(nid) {
pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
old = rcu_dereference_protected(pn->shrinker_map, true);
......@@ -250,7 +247,7 @@ int alloc_shrinker_maps(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
return 0;
mutex_lock(&memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
size = memcg_shrinker_map_size;
for_each_node(nid) {
map = kvzalloc_node(sizeof(*map) + size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
......@@ -261,7 +258,7 @@ int alloc_shrinker_maps(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
}
rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_map, map);
}
mutex_unlock(&memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
return ret;
}
......@@ -276,9 +273,10 @@ static int expand_shrinker_maps(int new_id)
if (size <= old_size)
return 0;
mutex_lock(&memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
if (!root_mem_cgroup)
goto unlock;
goto out;
lockdep_assert_held(&shrinker_rwsem);
memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
do {
......@@ -287,13 +285,13 @@ static int expand_shrinker_maps(int new_id)
ret = expand_one_shrinker_map(memcg, size, old_size);
if (ret) {
mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
goto unlock;
goto out;
}
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)) != NULL);
unlock:
out:
if (!ret)
memcg_shrinker_map_size = size;
mutex_unlock(&memcg_shrinker_map_mutex);
return ret;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment