On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 7:36 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > @@ -504,6 +577,34 @@ int memcg_expand_shrinker_maps(int new_id)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +int memcg_expand_shrinker_deferred(int new_id)
> > +{
> > + int size, old_size, ret = 0;
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > +
> > + size = (new_id + 1) * sizeof(atomic_long_t);
> > + old_size = memcg_shrinker_deferred_size;
> > + if (size <= old_size)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&memcg_shrinker_mutex);
>
> The locking is somewhat confusing. I was wondering why we first read
> memcg_shrinker_deferred_size "locklessly", then change it while
> holding the &memcg_shrinker_mutex.
The concurrent shrinkers registration may have race. But, they should
get different IDs, so it seems not matter.
I agree it is a little bit confusing and not that straightforward, it
does owe some comments in the code.
>
> memcg_shrinker_deferred_size only changes under shrinker_rwsem(write),
> correct? This should be documented in a comment, IMO.
>
> memcg_shrinker_mutex looks superfluous then. The memcg allocation path
> is the read-side of memcg_shrinker_deferred_size, and so simply needs
> to take shrinker_rwsem(read) to lock out shrinker (de)registration.
>
> Also, isn't memcg_shrinker_deferred_size just shrinker_nr_max? And
> memcg_expand_shrinker_deferred() is only called when size >= old_size
> in the first place (because id >= shrinker_nr_max)?
