From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAE5A15921B for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718641861; cv=none; b=EoKljTzjCHrJn+Iv44Bn/xY3uKD+jkCoElNjLzkIfGjKkCBA5F1EI1n4YGHv1cZVZNl94dAiHmIjKvbC+6Uqn4jlRxp0b/a1FsViDawUiAmnfOCCm4am8cyZ7JDJMUIlmU0qaoNTimhcQN2w7mYo+VQOjhwvaYp1h6a7BLD0s34= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718641861; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N+Qryf05FJj1hGepJO+grejqagGTDFVxmTmLFR24LxA=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XJv0QkfMjbcK6LvuLikCBtyxRNLBz++eE3esTISmsjxaBhzJqCUERXfBBS60Qreg8xq+WvMAbSu5kei1SxCoWXS+lWeOTKuho9tSdexO9gsMHAbOkSnh7gzHVygKu3E3q6g7XlFuR4K4Gh081Frn1OX6GfeL6vSZHLc9wqevgFU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=US1In23Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="US1In23Z" Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2e724bc46c4so51123531fa.2 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:30:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718641858; x=1719246658; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=P18NXjBrMly2kaNOMkzQiyWW0KiEt9TV5gbmtLRhdnE=; b=US1In23ZUtWyVdbJqz+qE5GtEPtGrh4owPnoz+wOv24Yu4sOQ5Umrzgs5IrDPSlGXm 7xZjckWr7kwbeyhPo0ZavB4P+qfWFtjuh8PwHhJc/IU9+i6qFgehm/ehVLbTSQHt07HQ LA1EvWrAgRKdk2vnreEJRqznOUrZLag9mcoYLqCw1SuKcufPH4z2HLFpmsPnP1ZTV/Fq aIiUAT0Jte9U6yjrFi1lu3/m/BUbuoGxV0PKNp4V178ktXvhq9ISOn8fSda/4FPj4YCx MoZiHme85HK25lnqvxxHh3lGcFcz4rcnSRqKI6N+bWPwQSj4QENdOQZ+s3DcUuzKNCgR wwKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718641858; x=1719246658; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=P18NXjBrMly2kaNOMkzQiyWW0KiEt9TV5gbmtLRhdnE=; b=EML9V+hCo1ZmJCDEcqbACml74Xn6rknwYF3JVFoSqu4uELfsmk4shSIr/G0IB8t402 Ec5rspNoyOGPnazWbOjw6SD+eqBEw0ax4E2ZAzwDafnbZKZNgmJDXlejXlSckXmFLbxH TUDfOwJSulwgilDsnf3CZ/6pCcFem0c1oHR3gaPKqzGWM4C1BdQc27iK5OacxGDACLGg +AKI5uXLLDPEuylKbOGuHl87a59x6U5K7z09GyMK0cU58Mvikfl7HJH87N1B2ZnKMr4n qAj/CB2FnLqMBG8J5FPKnlUhuCCwNnQBner83c8tX/7C5lvnZqDbpNtrccw35KAXsWHt wTFw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVy4lP56NRFlcJeDlR0cJxJPbVqlI1oCrw/C3VNMhjS8OnVQi67wBKo8EZ1BpwuscdBB2Q7DyUY7Hd3TGPIXEEudr0q0vZI X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwEd4cRVrVCjN4w/xHiIYjVpAS0yWJL4WSU6l342W4RfMn9EIYm r/OAtv4A3iisdK8L4kLDRuQE3yY1O7uERdFLE/iTbboUBFmW5gUb X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEPhqe0DMj4rMlaXsMOCbhrl4lbGG1gPjCGb7ivFIirSumn2PP7mfmxsW/9BAzDd49k/bprGA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9cd6:0:b0:2eb:fdd3:8fa2 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec0e5c5816mr68620871fa.13.1718641857513; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-216-238.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.216.238]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec05c78400sm14106751fa.84.2024.06.17.09.30.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:30:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:30:53 +0200 To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , "Paul E. McKenney" , Vlastimil Babka , Jakub Kicinski , Julia Lawall , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mathieu Desnoyers , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "Naveen N. Rao" , Christophe Leroy , Nicholas Piggin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown , Olga Kornievskaia , Dai Ngo , Tom Talpey , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache_free callback Message-ID: References: <7efde25f-6af5-4a67-abea-b26732a8aca1@paulmck-laptop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bridge@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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-MI@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