diff mbox series

[-next,conflict,imminent] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm, slub: handle pending kfree_rcu() in kmem_cache_destroy()

Message ID 54d62d5a-16e3-4ea9-83c6-8801ee99855e@suse.cz (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series [-next,conflict,imminent] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm, slub: handle pending kfree_rcu() in kmem_cache_destroy() | expand

Commit Message

Vlastimil Babka Aug. 9, 2024, 3:02 p.m. UTC 
On 8/7/24 12:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Also in git:
> https://git.kernel.org/vbabka/l/slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2r2

I've added this to slab/for-next, there will be some conflicts and here's my
resulting git show or the merge commit I tried over today's next.

It might look a bit different with tomorrow's next as mm will have v7 of the
conflicting series from Jann:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/1ca6275f-a2fc-4bad-81dc-6257d4f8d750@suse.cz/

(also I did resolve it in the way I suggested to move Jann's block before
taking slab_mutex() but unless that happens in mm-unstable it would probably be more
correct to keep where he did)

---8<---
commit 444486f2b7b0325ba026e0ad129eba3f54c18301
Merge: 61c01d2e181a 63eac6bdcf9f
Author: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri Aug 9 16:49:03 2024 +0200

    Merge branch 'slab/for-6.12/rcu_barriers' into HEAD

+++ b/include/linux/rcutree.h
@@@ -35,9 -35,10 +35,10 @@@ static inline void rcu_virt_note_contex
  
  void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void);
  void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void *ptr);
+ void kvfree_rcu_barrier(void);
  
  void rcu_barrier(void);
 -void rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(void);
 +void rcu_momentary_eqs(void);
  void kfree_rcu_scheduler_running(void);
  bool rcu_gp_might_be_stalled(void);
  
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@@ -3614,7 -3631,7 +3611,7 @@@ kvfree_rcu_queue_batch(struct kfree_rcu
  			// be that the work is in the pending state when
  			// channels have been detached following by each
  			// other.
- 			queue_rcu_work(system_unbound_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
 -			queued = queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
++			queued = queue_rcu_work(system_unbound_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
  		}
  	}
  
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@@ -511,67 -487,40 +505,52 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_buckets_create)
   */
  static void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
  {
- 	if (slab_state >= FULL) {
- 		sysfs_slab_unlink(s);
+ 	kfence_shutdown_cache(s);
+ 	if (__is_defined(SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS) && slab_state >= FULL)
  		sysfs_slab_release(s);
- 	} else {
+ 	else
  		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
- 	}
  }
- #else
- static void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
+ 
+ void slab_kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
  {
- 	slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
+ 	__kmem_cache_release(s);
+ 	kfree_const(s->name);
+ 	kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
  }
- #endif
  
- static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
+ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
  {
- 	LIST_HEAD(to_destroy);
- 	struct kmem_cache *s, *s2;
- 
- 	/*
- 	 * On destruction, SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU kmem_caches are put on the
- 	 * @slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list.  The slab pages are freed
- 	 * through RCU and the associated kmem_cache are dereferenced
- 	 * while freeing the pages, so the kmem_caches should be freed only
- 	 * after the pending RCU operations are finished.  As rcu_barrier()
- 	 * is a pretty slow operation, we batch all pending destructions
- 	 * asynchronously.
- 	 */
- 	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
- 	list_splice_init(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy, &to_destroy);
- 	mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
+ 	int err;
  
- 	if (list_empty(&to_destroy))
+ 	if (unlikely(!s) || !kasan_check_byte(s))
  		return;
  
- 	rcu_barrier();
+ 	/* in-flight kfree_rcu()'s may include objects from our cache */
+ 	kvfree_rcu_barrier();
  
- 	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, &to_destroy, list) {
- 		debugfs_slab_release(s);
- 		kfence_shutdown_cache(s);
- 		kmem_cache_release(s);
- 	}
- }
- 
- static int shutdown_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
- {
 +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_RCU_DEBUG) &&
 +	    (s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU)) {
 +		/*
 +		 * Under CONFIG_SLUB_RCU_DEBUG, when objects in a
 +		 * SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU slab are freed, SLUB will internally
 +		 * defer their freeing with call_rcu().
 +		 * Wait for such call_rcu() invocations here before actually
 +		 * destroying the cache.
 +		 */
 +		rcu_barrier();
 +	}
 +
+ 	cpus_read_lock();
+ 	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
+ 
+ 	s->refcount--;
+ 	if (s->refcount) {
+ 		mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
+ 		cpus_read_unlock();
+ 		return;
+ 	}
+ 
  	/* free asan quarantined objects */
  	kasan_cache_shutdown(s);

Comments

Jann Horn Aug. 9, 2024, 3:12 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:02 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 8/7/24 12:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Also in git:
> > https://git.kernel.org/vbabka/l/slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2r2
>
> I've added this to slab/for-next, there will be some conflicts and here's my
> resulting git show or the merge commit I tried over today's next.
>
> It might look a bit different with tomorrow's next as mm will have v7 of the
> conflicting series from Jann:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1ca6275f-a2fc-4bad-81dc-6257d4f8d750@suse.cz/
>
> (also I did resolve it in the way I suggested to move Jann's block before
> taking slab_mutex() but unless that happens in mm-unstable it would probably be more
> correct to keep where he did)

Regarding my conflicting patch: Do you want me to send a v8 of that
one now to move things around in my patch as you suggested? Or should
we do that in the slab tree after the conflict has been resolved in
Linus' tree, or something like that?
I'm not sure which way of doing this would minimize work for maintainers...
Vlastimil Babka Aug. 9, 2024, 3:14 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 8/9/24 17:12, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:02 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On 8/7/24 12:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > Also in git:
>> > https://git.kernel.org/vbabka/l/slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2r2
>>
>> I've added this to slab/for-next, there will be some conflicts and here's my
>> resulting git show or the merge commit I tried over today's next.
>>
>> It might look a bit different with tomorrow's next as mm will have v7 of the
>> conflicting series from Jann:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1ca6275f-a2fc-4bad-81dc-6257d4f8d750@suse.cz/
>>
>> (also I did resolve it in the way I suggested to move Jann's block before
>> taking slab_mutex() but unless that happens in mm-unstable it would probably be more
>> correct to keep where he did)
> 
> Regarding my conflicting patch: Do you want me to send a v8 of that
> one now to move things around in my patch as you suggested? Or should
> we do that in the slab tree after the conflict has been resolved in
> Linus' tree, or something like that?
> I'm not sure which way of doing this would minimize work for maintainers...

I guess it would be easiest to send a -fix to Andrew as it's rather minor
change. Thanks!
Andrew Morton Aug. 10, 2024, 12:11 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:14:40 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:

> On 8/9/24 17:12, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:02 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> On 8/7/24 12:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> > Also in git:
> >> > https://git.kernel.org/vbabka/l/slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2r2
> >>
> >> I've added this to slab/for-next, there will be some conflicts and here's my
> >> resulting git show or the merge commit I tried over today's next.
> >>
> >> It might look a bit different with tomorrow's next as mm will have v7 of the
> >> conflicting series from Jann:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1ca6275f-a2fc-4bad-81dc-6257d4f8d750@suse.cz/
> >>
> >> (also I did resolve it in the way I suggested to move Jann's block before
> >> taking slab_mutex() but unless that happens in mm-unstable it would probably be more
> >> correct to keep where he did)
> > 
> > Regarding my conflicting patch: Do you want me to send a v8 of that
> > one now to move things around in my patch as you suggested? Or should
> > we do that in the slab tree after the conflict has been resolved in
> > Linus' tree, or something like that?
> > I'm not sure which way of doing this would minimize work for maintainers...
> 
> I guess it would be easiest to send a -fix to Andrew as it's rather minor
> change. Thanks!

That's quite a large conflict.  How about we carry Jann's patchset in
the slab tree?
Vlastimil Babka Aug. 10, 2024, 8:25 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 8/10/24 2:11 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:14:40 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/9/24 17:12, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:02 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/24 12:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>> Also in git:
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/vbabka/l/slab-kfree_rcu-destroy-v2r2
>>>>
>>>> I've added this to slab/for-next, there will be some conflicts and here's my
>>>> resulting git show or the merge commit I tried over today's next.
>>>>
>>>> It might look a bit different with tomorrow's next as mm will have v7 of the
>>>> conflicting series from Jann:
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1ca6275f-a2fc-4bad-81dc-6257d4f8d750@suse.cz/
>>>>
>>>> (also I did resolve it in the way I suggested to move Jann's block before
>>>> taking slab_mutex() but unless that happens in mm-unstable it would probably be more
>>>> correct to keep where he did)
>>>
>>> Regarding my conflicting patch: Do you want me to send a v8 of that
>>> one now to move things around in my patch as you suggested? Or should
>>> we do that in the slab tree after the conflict has been resolved in
>>> Linus' tree, or something like that?
>>> I'm not sure which way of doing this would minimize work for maintainers...
>>
>> I guess it would be easiest to send a -fix to Andrew as it's rather minor
>> change. Thanks!
> 
> That's quite a large conflict.  How about we carry Jann's patchset in
> the slab tree?

OK I've done that and pushed to slab/for-next. Had no issues applying
the kasan parts and merge with mm-unstable (locally rebased with Jann's
commits dropped) had no conflicts either so it should work fine. Thanks!
Andrew Morton Aug. 10, 2024, 8:30 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:25:05 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:

> >> I guess it would be easiest to send a -fix to Andrew as it's rather minor
> >> change. Thanks!
> > 
> > That's quite a large conflict.  How about we carry Jann's patchset in
> > the slab tree?
> 
> OK I've done that and pushed to slab/for-next. Had no issues applying
> the kasan parts and merge with mm-unstable (locally rebased with Jann's
> commits dropped) had no conflicts either so it should work fine. Thanks!

Cool.  I have dropped the copy of v8 from mm.git.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --cc include/linux/rcutree.h
index 7dbde2b6f714,58e7db80f3a8..90a684f94776
--- a/include/linux/rcutree.h
diff --cc kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 930846f06bee,ebcfed9b570e..4606fa361b06
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
diff --cc mm/slab_common.c
index fc7b1250d929,1a2873293f5d..82f287c21954
--- a/mm/slab_common.c