Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache_free callback

Jason A. Donenfeld
2024-06-13T14:12:04Z

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 05:46:11AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> How about a kmem_cache_destroy_rcu() that marks that specified cache
> for destruction, and then a kmem_cache_destroy_barrier() that waits?
>
> I took the liberty of adding your name to the Google document [1] and
> adding this section:

Cool, though no need to make me yellow!

> > But then, if that mechanism generally works, we don't really need a new
> > function and we can just go with the first option of making
> > kmem_cache_destroy() asynchronously wait. It'll wait, as you described,
> > but then we adjust the tail of every kfree_rcu batch freeing cycle to
> > check if there are _still_ any old outstanding kmem_cache_destroy()
> > requests. If so, then we can splat and keep the old debugging info we
> > currently have for finding memleaks.
>
> The mechanism can always be sabotaged by memory-leak bugs on the part
> of the user of the kmem_cache structure in play, right?
>
> OK, but I see your point. I added this to the existing
> "kmem_cache_destroy() Lingers for kfree_rcu()" section:
>
> One way of preserving this debugging information is to splat if
> all of the slab’s memory has not been freed within a reasonable
> timeframe, perhaps the same 21 seconds that causes an RCU CPU
> stall warning.
>
> Does that capture it?

Not quite what I was thinking. Your 21 seconds as a time-based thing I
guess could be fine. But I was mostly thinking:

1) kmem_cache_destroy() is called, but there are outstanding objects, so
it defers.

2) Sometime later, a kfree_rcu_work batch freeing operation runs.

3) At the end of this batch freeing, the kernel notices that the
kmem_cache whose destruction was previously deferred still has
outstanding objects and has not been destroyed. It can conclude that
there's thus been a memory leak.

In other words, instead of having to do this based on timers, you can
just have the batch freeing code ask, "did those pending kmem_cache
destructions get completed as a result of this last operation?"