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...@zx2c4.com/ - > > > > > > 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