On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:56:17PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:50:56PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:33:45PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 02:35:33PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > + /* Should a destroy process be deferred? */
> > > > + if (s->flags & SLAB_DEFER_DESTROY) {
> > > > + list_move_tail(&s->list, &slab_caches_defer_destroy);
> > > > + schedule_delayed_work(&slab_caches_defer_destroy_work, HZ);
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be smoother to have the actual kmem_cache_free() function
> > > check to see if it's been marked for destruction and the refcount is
> > > zero, rather than polling every one second? I mentioned this approach
> > > in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zmo9-YGraiCj5-MI@xxxxxxxxx/ -
> > >
> > > I wonder if the right fix to this would be adding a `should_destroy`
> > > boolean to kmem_cache, which kmem_cache_destroy() sets to true. And
> > > then right after it checks `if (number_of_allocations == 0)
> > > actually_destroy()`, and likewise on each kmem_cache_free(), it
> > > could check `if (should_destroy && number_of_allocations == 0)
> > > actually_destroy()`.
> > >
> > I do not find pooling as bad way we can go with. But your proposal
> > sounds reasonable to me also. We can combine both "prototypes" to
> > one and offer.
> >
> > Can you post a prototype here?
>
> This is untested, but the simplest, shortest possible version would be:
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> index 5f8f47c5bee0..907c0ea56c01 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.h
> +++ b/mm/slab.h
> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ struct kmem_cache {
> unsigned int inuse; /* Offset to metadata */
> unsigned int align; /* Alignment */
> unsigned int red_left_pad; /* Left redzone padding size */
> + bool is_destroyed; /* Destruction happens when no objects */
> const char *name; /* Name (only for display!) */
> struct list_head list; /* List of slab caches */
> #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 1560a1546bb1..f700bed066d9 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -494,8 +494,8 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> err = shutdown_cache(s);
> - WARN(err, "%s %s: Slab cache still has objects when called from %pS",
> - __func__, s->name, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> + if (err)
> + s->is_destroyed = true;
>
Here if an "err" is less then "0" means there are still objects
whereas "is_destroyed" is set to "true" which is not correlated
with a comment:
"Destruction happens when no objects"
> out_unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> cpus_read_unlock();
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 1373ac365a46..7db8fe90a323 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -4510,6 +4510,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
> return;
> trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s);
> slab_free(s, virt_to_slab(x), x, _RET_IP_);
> + if (s->is_destroyed)
> + kmem_cache_destroy(s);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
>
> @@ -5342,9 +5344,6 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> if (!slab->inuse) {
> remove_partial(n, slab);
> list_add(&slab->slab_list, &discard);
> - } else {
> - list_slab_objects(s, slab,
> - "Objects remaining in %s on __kmem_cache_shutdown()");
> }
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
>
Anyway it looks like it was not welcome to do it in the kmem_cache_free()
function due to performance reason.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
