lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm,vmscan: Kill global shrinker lock.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:28:10PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:37:42AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> >> When shrinker_rwsem was introduced, it was assumed that
>> >> register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker() are really unlikely paths
>> >> which are called during initialization and tear down. But nowadays,
>> >> register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker() might be called regularly.
>> >> This patch prepares for allowing parallel registration/unregistration
>> >> of shrinkers.
>> >>
>> >> Since do_shrink_slab() can reschedule, we cannot protect shrinker_list
>> >> using one RCU section. But using atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() for each
>> >> do_shrink_slab() call will not impact so much.
>> >>
>> >> This patch uses polling loop with short sleep for unregister_shrinker()
>> >> rather than wait_on_atomic_t(), for we can save reader's cost (plain
>> >> atomic_dec() compared to atomic_dec_and_test()), we can expect that
>> >> do_shrink_slab() of unregistering shrinker likely returns shortly, and
>> >> we can avoid khungtaskd warnings when do_shrink_slab() of unregistering
>> >> shrinker unexpectedly took so long.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
>> >
>> > Before reviewing this patch, can't we solve the problem with more
>> > simple way? Like this.
>> >
>> > Shakeel, What do you think?
>> >
>>
>> Seems simple enough. I will run my test (running fork bomb in one
>> memcg and separately time a mount operation) and update if numbers
>> differ significantly.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > index 13d711dd8776..cbb624cb9baa 100644
>> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > @@ -498,6 +498,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>> > sc.nid = 0;
>> >
>> > freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, nr_scanned, nr_eligible);
>> > + /*
>> > + * bail out if someone want to register a new shrinker to prevent
>> > + * long time stall by parallel ongoing shrinking.
>> > + */
>> > + if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
>> > + freed = 1;
>>
>> freed = freed ?: 1;
>
> Yub.

Thanks Minchan, you can add

Reviewed-and-tested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-16 02:42    [W:0.072 / U:3.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site