On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:37:42AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> When shrinker_rwsem was introduced, it was assumed that
> register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker() are really unlikely paths
> which are called during initialization and tear down. But nowadays,
> register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker() might be called regularly.
> This patch prepares for allowing parallel registration/unregistration
> of shrinkers.
>
> Since do_shrink_slab() can reschedule, we cannot protect shrinker_list
> using one RCU section. But using atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() for each
> do_shrink_slab() call will not impact so much.
>
> This patch uses polling loop with short sleep for unregister_shrinker()
> rather than wait_on_atomic_t(), for we can save reader's cost (plain
> atomic_dec() compared to atomic_dec_and_test()), we can expect that
> do_shrink_slab() of unregistering shrinker likely returns shortly, and
> we can avoid khungtaskd warnings when do_shrink_slab() of unregistering
> shrinker unexpectedly took so long.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Before reviewing this patch, can't we solve the problem with more
simple way? Like this.
Shakeel, What do you think?
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 13d711dd8776..cbb624cb9baa 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -498,6 +498,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
sc.nid = 0;
freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, nr_scanned, nr_eligible);
+ /*
+ * bail out if someone want to register a new shrinker to prevent
+ * long time stall by parallel ongoing shrinking.
+ */
+ if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
+ freed = 1;
+ break;
+ }
}
up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
