Re: [PATCH v2 03/47] mm: shrinker: add infrastructure for dynamically allocating shrinker

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Peter,

On 2023/7/24 20:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 05:43:10PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:

+void shrinker_unregister(struct shrinker *shrinker)
+	struct dentry *debugfs_entry;
+	int debugfs_id;
+	if (!shrinker || !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_REGISTERED))
+		return;
+	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
+	list_del(&shrinker->list);
+	shrinker->flags &= ~SHRINKER_REGISTERED;
+	if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
+		unregister_memcg_shrinker(shrinker);
+	debugfs_entry = shrinker_debugfs_detach(shrinker, &debugfs_id);
+	up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
+	shrinker_debugfs_remove(debugfs_entry, debugfs_id);

Should there not be an rcu_barrier() right about here?

The shrinker_debugfs_remove() will wait for debugfs_file_put() to
return, so when running here, all shrinker debugfs operations have
been completed. And the slab shrink will hold the read lock of
shrinker_rwsem to traverse the shrinker_list, so when we hold the
write lock of shrinker_rwsem to delete the shrinker from the
shrinker_list, the shrinker will not be executed again.

So I think there is no need to add a rcu_barrier() here. Please let
me know if I missed something.


+	kfree(shrinker->nr_deferred);
+	shrinker->nr_deferred = NULL;
+	kfree(shrinker);

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux