I apologize sincerely for my irresponsible and hasty email.
I reverted the unnecessary backport of 2799e77529c2 and 2efa33fc7f6e,
tested on the same qemu box as before with the same C program, there
is no warning about RCU this time. dmesg only shows the backtrace of
OOM kill.
As for memory OOMs caused by grace period's undue ends, I found each
deletion of a inode will cause a leak.
1035 void security_inode_free(struct inode *inode)
1036 {
1037 integrity_inode_free(inode);
1038 call_void_hook(inode_free_security, inode);
1039 /*
1040 * The inode may still be referenced in a path walk and
1041 * a call to security_inode_permission() can be made
1042 * after inode_free_security() is called. Ideally, the VFS
1043 * wouldn't do this, but fixing that is a much harder
1044 * job. For now, simply free the i_security via RCU, and
1045 * leave the current inode->i_security pointer intact.
1046 * The inode will be freed after the RCU grace period too.
1047 */
1048 if (inode->i_security)
1049 call_rcu((struct rcu_head *)inode->i_security,
1050 inode_free_by_rcu);
1051 }
I am willing to do any experiment if there is a need.
Sorry again
Best Wishes
Zhouyi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 8:36 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 04:57:57PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing,
> >
> > What I have deduced from the dmesg is:
> > In function do_swap_page,
> > after invoking
> > 3385 si = get_swap_device(entry); /* rcu_read_lock */
> > and before
> > 3561 out:
> > 3562 if (si)
> > 3563 put_swap_device(si);
> > The thread got scheduled out in
> > 3454 locked = lock_page_or_retry(page, vma->vm_mm, vmf->flags);
> >
> > I am only familiar with Linux RCU subsystem, hope mm people can solve our
> > confusions.
>
> I don't understamd why you're still talking. The problem is understood.
> You need to revert the unnecessary backport of 2799e77529c2 and
> 2efa33fc7f6e
