On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:41:16 -0700 Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> wrote:

> The memcg kmem cache creation and deactivation (SLUB only) is
> asynchronous. If a root kmem cache is destroyed whose memcg cache is in
> the process of creation or deactivation, the kernel may crash.
> 
> Example of one such crash:
>       general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
>       CPU: 1 PID: 1721 Comm: kworker/14:1 Not tainted 4.17.0-smp
>       ...
>       Workqueue: memcg_kmem_cache kmemcg_deactivate_workfn
>       RIP: 0010:has_cpu_slab
>       ...
>       Call Trace:
>       ? on_each_cpu_cond
>       __kmem_cache_shrink
>       kmemcg_cache_deact_after_rcu
>       kmemcg_deactivate_workfn
>       process_one_work
>       worker_thread
>       kthread
>       ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> 
> This issue is due to the lack of reference counting for the root
> kmem_caches. There exist a refcount in kmem_cache but it is actually a
> count of aliases i.e. number of kmem_caches merged together.
> 
> This patch make alias count explicit and adds reference counting to the
> root kmem_caches. The reference of a root kmem cache is elevated on
> merge and while its memcg kmem_cache is in the process of creation or
> deactivation.
> 

The patch seems depressingly complex.

And a bit underdocumented...

> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ struct memcg_cache_params {
>  };
>  
>  int memcg_update_all_caches(int num_memcgs);
> +bool kmem_cache_tryget(struct kmem_cache *s);
> +void kmem_cache_put(struct kmem_cache *s);
>  
>  /**
>   * kmalloc_array - allocate memory for an array.
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab_def.h b/include/linux/slab_def.h
> index d9228e4d0320..4bb22c89a740 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab_def.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab_def.h
> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ struct kmem_cache {
>  /* 4) cache creation/removal */
>       const char *name;
>       struct list_head list;
> -     int refcount;
> +     refcount_t refcount;
> +     int alias_count;

The semantic meaning of these two?  What locking protects alias_count?

>       int object_size;
>       int align;
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/slub_def.h b/include/linux/slub_def.h
> index 3773e26c08c1..532d4b6f83ed 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slub_def.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slub_def.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ struct kmem_cache {
>       struct kmem_cache_order_objects max;
>       struct kmem_cache_order_objects min;
>       gfp_t allocflags;       /* gfp flags to use on each alloc */
> -     int refcount;           /* Refcount for slab cache destroy */
> +     refcount_t refcount;    /* Refcount for slab cache destroy */
> +     int alias_count;        /* Number of root kmem caches merged */

"merged" what with what in what manner?

>       void (*ctor)(void *);
>       unsigned int inuse;             /* Offset to metadata */
>       unsigned int align;             /* Alignment */
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/slab.h
> +++ b/mm/slab.h
> @@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ struct kmem_cache {
>       unsigned int useroffset;/* Usercopy region offset */
>       unsigned int usersize;  /* Usercopy region size */
>       const char *name;       /* Slab name for sysfs */
> -     int refcount;           /* Use counter */
> +     refcount_t refcount;    /* Use counter */
> +     int alias_count;

Semantic meaning/usage of alias_count?  Locking for it?

>       void (*ctor)(void *);   /* Called on object slot creation */
>       struct list_head list;  /* List of all slab caches on the system */
>  };
>
> ...
>
> +bool kmem_cache_tryget(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> +     if (is_root_cache(s))
> +             return refcount_inc_not_zero(&s->refcount);
> +     return false;
> +}
> +
> +void kmem_cache_put(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> +     if (is_root_cache(s) &&
> +         refcount_dec_and_test(&s->refcount))
> +             __kmem_cache_destroy(s, true);
> +}
> +
> +void kmem_cache_put_locked(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> +     if (is_root_cache(s) &&
> +         refcount_dec_and_test(&s->refcount))
> +             __kmem_cache_destroy(s, false);
> +}

Some covering documentation for the above would be useful.  Why do they
exist, why do they only operate on the root cache? etc.

>
> ...
>

Reply via email to