On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:44:51PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Currently the memcg_params.dying flag and the corresponding
> workqueue used for the asynchronous deactivation of kmem_caches
> is synchronized using the slab_mutex.
>
> It makes impossible to check this flag from the irq context,
> which will be required in order to implement asynchronous release
> of kmem_caches.
>
> So let's switch over to the irq-save flavor of the spinlock-based
> synchronization.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/slab_common.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 09b26673b63f..2914a8f0aa85 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ int __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, size_t nr,
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>
> LIST_HEAD(slab_root_caches);
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
>
> void slab_init_memcg_params(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> @@ -629,6 +630,7 @@ void memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct memcg_cache_array *arr;
> struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> char *cache_name;
> + bool dying;
> int idx;
>
> get_online_cpus();
> @@ -640,7 +642,13 @@ void memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * The memory cgroup could have been offlined while the cache
> * creation work was pending.
> */
> - if (memcg->kmem_state != KMEM_ONLINE || root_cache->memcg_params.dying)
> + if (memcg->kmem_state != KMEM_ONLINE)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> + dying = root_cache->memcg_params.dying;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> + if (dying)
> goto out_unlock;
I do understand why we need to sync setting dying flag for a kmem cache
about to be destroyed in flush_memcg_workqueue vs checking the flag in
kmemcg_cache_deactivate: this is needed so that we don't schedule a new
deactivation work after we flush RCU/workqueue. However, I don't think
it's necessary to check the dying flag here, in memcg_create_kmem_cache:
we can't schedule a new cache creation work after kmem_cache_destroy has
started, because one mustn't allocate from a dead kmem cache; since we
flush the queue before getting to actual destruction, no cache creation
work can be pending. Yeah, it might happen that a cache creation work
starts execution while flush_memcg_workqueue is in progress, but I don't
see any point in optimizing this case - after all, cache destruction is
a very cold path. Since checking the flag in memcg_create_kmem_cache
raises question, I suggest to simply drop this check.
Anyway, it would be nice to see some comment in the code explaining why
we check dying flag under a spin lock in kmemcg_cache_deactivate.
>
> idx = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
> @@ -735,14 +743,17 @@ static void kmemcg_cache_deactivate(struct kmem_cache *s)
>
> __kmemcg_cache_deactivate(s);
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> if (s->memcg_params.root_cache->memcg_params.dying)
> - return;
> + goto unlock;
>
> /* pin memcg so that @s doesn't get destroyed in the middle */
> css_get(&s->memcg_params.memcg->css);
>
> s->memcg_params.work_fn = __kmemcg_cache_deactivate_after_rcu;
> call_rcu(&s->memcg_params.rcu_head, kmemcg_rcufn);
> +unlock:
> + spin_unlock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> }
>
> void memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> @@ -852,9 +863,9 @@ static int shutdown_memcg_caches(struct kmem_cache *s)
>
> static void flush_memcg_workqueue(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> - mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> + spin_lock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> s->memcg_params.dying = true;
> - mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
>
> /*
> * SLAB and SLUB deactivate the kmem_caches through call_rcu. Make
