On 2/24/25 12:44, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:28:49PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 2/21/25 17:30, Keith Busch wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:31:19PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >> We would like to replace call_rcu() users with kfree_rcu() where the
>> >> existing callback is just a kmem_cache_free(). However this causes
>> >> issues when the cache can be destroyed (such as due to module unload).
>> >>
>> >> Currently such modules should be issuing rcu_barrier() before
>> >> kmem_cache_destroy() to have their call_rcu() callbacks processed first.
>> >> This barrier is however not sufficient for kfree_rcu() in flight due
>> >> to the batching introduced by a35d16905efc ("rcu: Add basic support for
>> >> kfree_rcu() batching").
>> >>
>> >> This is not a problem for kmalloc caches which are never destroyed, but
>> >> since removing SLOB, kfree_rcu() is allowed also for any other cache,
>> >> that might be destroyed.
>> >>
>> >> In order not to complicate the API, put the responsibility for handling
>> >> outstanding kfree_rcu() in kmem_cache_destroy() itself. Use the newly
>> >> introduced kvfree_rcu_barrier() to wait before destroying the cache.
>> >> This is similar to how we issue rcu_barrier() for SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU
>> >> caches, but has to be done earlier, as the latter only needs to wait for
>> >> the empty slab pages to finish freeing, and not objects from the slab.
>> >>
>> >> Users of call_rcu() with arbitrary callbacks should still issue
>> >> rcu_barrier() before destroying the cache and unloading the module, as
>> >> kvfree_rcu_barrier() is not a superset of rcu_barrier() and the
>> >> callbacks may be invoking module code or performing other actions that
>> >> are necessary for a successful unload.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> mm/slab_common.c | 3 +++
>> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>> >> index c40227d5fa07..1a2873293f5d 100644
>> >> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> >> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> >> @@ -508,6 +508,9 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> >> if (unlikely(!s) || !kasan_check_byte(s))
>> >> return;
>> >>
>> >> + /* in-flight kfree_rcu()'s may include objects from our cache */
>> >> + kvfree_rcu_barrier();
>> >> +
>> >> cpus_read_lock();
>> >> mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
>> >
>> > This patch appears to be triggering a new warning in certain conditions
>> > when tearing down an nvme namespace's block device. Stack trace is at
>> > the end.
>> >
>> > The warning indicates that this shouldn't be called from a
>> > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue. This workqueue is responsible for bringing up
>> > and tearing down block devices, so this is a memory reclaim use AIUI.
>> > I'm a bit confused why we can't tear down a disk from within a memory
>> > reclaim workqueue. Is the recommended solution to simply remove the WQ
>> > flag when creating the workqueue?
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to expect a memory reclaim related action would
>> destroy a kmem cache. Mateusz's suggestion would work around the issue, but
>> then we could get another surprising warning elsewhere. Also making the
>> kmem_cache destroys async can be tricky when a recreation happens
>> immediately under the same name (implications with sysfs/debugfs etc). We
>> managed to make the destroying synchronous as part of this series and it
>> would be great to keep it that way.
>>
>> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> > workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM nvme-wq:nvme_scan_work is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM events_unbound:kfree_rcu_work
>>
>> Maybe instead kfree_rcu_work should be using a WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue? It
>> is after all freeing memory. Ulad, what do you think?
>>
> We reclaim memory, therefore WQ_MEM_RECLAIM seems what we need.
> AFAIR, there is an extra rescue worker, which can really help
> under a low memory condition in a way that we do a progress.
>
> Do we have a reproducer of mentioned splat?
I tried to create a kunit test for it, but it doesn't trigger anything. Maybe
it's too simple, or racy, and thus we are not flushing any of the queues from
kvfree_rcu_barrier()?
----8<----
