On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:41:41PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Minchan Kim <minc...@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 <minc...@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-ker...@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 <shake...@google.com>
Thanks for the testing, Shakeel.
I will send formal patch to Andrew after closing merge window.
