From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@ya.ru>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org,
hughd@google.com, paulmck@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: Use delayed shrinker unregistration
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:38:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH6AA72wOd4HKTKE@P9FQF9L96D> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <168599180526.70911.14606767590861123431.stgit@pro.pro>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:03:25PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Kernel test robot reports -88.8% regression in stress-ng.ramfs.ops_per_sec
> test case caused by commit: f95bdb700bc6 ("mm: vmscan: make global slab
> shrink lockless"). Qi Zheng investigated that the reason is in long SRCU's
> synchronize_srcu() occuring in unregister_shrinker().
>
> This patch fixes the problem by using new unregistration interfaces,
> which split unregister_shrinker() in two parts. First part actually only
> notifies shrinker subsystem about the fact of unregistration and it prevents
> future shrinker methods calls. The second part completes the unregistration
> and it insures, that struct shrinker is not used during shrinker chain
> iteration anymore, so shrinker memory may be freed. Since the long second
> part is called from delayed work asynchronously, it hides synchronize_srcu()
> delay from a user.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@ya.ru>
> ---
> fs/super.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 8d8d68799b34..f3e4f205ec79 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ static void destroy_super_work(struct work_struct *work)
> destroy_work);
> int i;
>
> + unregister_shrinker_delayed_finalize(&s->s_shrink);
> for (i = 0; i < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; i++)
> percpu_free_rwsem(&s->s_writers.rw_sem[i]);
> kfree(s);
> @@ -327,7 +328,7 @@ void deactivate_locked_super(struct super_block *s)
> {
> struct file_system_type *fs = s->s_type;
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&s->s_active)) {
> - unregister_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
> + unregister_shrinker_delayed_initiate(&s->s_shrink);
Hm, it makes the API more complex and easier to mess with. Like what will happen
if the second part is never called? Or it's called without the first part being
called first?
Isn't it possible to hide it from a user and call the second part from a work
context automatically?
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-06 0:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-05 19:02 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: Make unregistration of super_block shrinker more faster Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-05 19:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: vmscan: move shrinker_debugfs_remove() before synchronize_srcu() Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-06 0:31 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-06-05 19:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: Split unregister_shrinker() in fast and slow part Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-07 4:49 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-07 7:33 ` Yujie Liu
2023-06-05 19:03 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: Use delayed shrinker unregistration Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-06 0:38 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2023-06-06 1:24 ` Dave Chinner
2023-06-06 2:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-06-06 6:51 ` Dave Chinner
2023-06-06 15:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-06-06 21:21 ` Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-06 22:30 ` Dave Chinner
2023-06-08 16:36 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-06-08 23:17 ` Dave Chinner
2023-06-09 0:27 ` Andrew Morton
2023-06-09 2:50 ` Qi Zheng
2023-06-05 22:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: Make unregistration of super_block shrinker more faster Dave Chinner
2023-06-06 21:06 ` Kirill Tkhai
2023-06-06 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2023-06-07 2:51 ` Qi Zheng
2023-06-08 21:58 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZH6AA72wOd4HKTKE@P9FQF9L96D \
--to=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=tkhai@ya.ru \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).