From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org by pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org (Dovecot) with LMTP id OCNKDI5SHVvzcwAAmS7hNA ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:38 +0000 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4179B607BB; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B117F6032D; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org B117F6032D Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753590AbeFJQcg (ORCPT + 25 others); Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:36 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:35160 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753407AbeFJQce (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5AGSlrH066904 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:33 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jh52s3akd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:33 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:32 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.23) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:27 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5AGWREf5832980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:27 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F6EB2065; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C377FB2064; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.80.203.110]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 46BCE16C2AC1; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:34:20 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Vladimir Davydov , Michal Hocko , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Linux MM , Cgroups , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix race between kmem_cache destroy, create and deactivate Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180530001204.183758-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20180609102027.5vkqucnzvh6nfdxu@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18061016-0072-0000-0000-0000036B6937 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009164; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000265; SDB=6.01045005; UDB=6.00535103; IPR=6.00824007; MB=3.00021565; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-10 16:32:31 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18061016-0073-0000-0000-00004850583F Message-Id: <20180610163420.GK3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-10_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806100201 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 07:52:50AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:20 AM Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 05:12:04PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > The memcg kmem cache creation and deactivation (SLUB only) is > > > asynchronous. If a root kmem cache is destroyed whose memcg cache is in > > > the process of creation or deactivation, the kernel may crash. > > > > > > Example of one such crash: > > > general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI > > > CPU: 1 PID: 1721 Comm: kworker/14:1 Not tainted 4.17.0-smp > > > ... > > > Workqueue: memcg_kmem_cache kmemcg_deactivate_workfn > > > RIP: 0010:has_cpu_slab > > > ... > > > Call Trace: > > > ? on_each_cpu_cond > > > __kmem_cache_shrink > > > kmemcg_cache_deact_after_rcu > > > kmemcg_deactivate_workfn > > > process_one_work > > > worker_thread > > > kthread > > > ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 > > > > > > To fix this race, on root kmem cache destruction, mark the cache as > > > dying and flush the workqueue used for memcg kmem cache creation and > > > deactivation. > > > > > @@ -845,6 +862,8 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s) > > > if (unlikely(!s)) > > > return; > > > > > > + flush_memcg_workqueue(s); > > > + > > > > This should definitely help against async memcg_kmem_cache_create(), > > but I'm afraid it doesn't eliminate the race with async destruction, > > unfortunately, because the latter uses call_rcu_sched(): > > > > memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches > > __kmem_cache_deactivate > > slab_deactivate_memcg_cache_rcu_sched > > call_rcu_sched > > kmem_cache_destroy > > shutdown_memcg_caches > > shutdown_cache > > memcg_deactivate_rcufn > > > > > > Can we somehow flush those pending rcu requests? > > You are right and thanks for catching that. Now I am wondering if > synchronize_sched() just before flush_workqueue() should be enough. > Otherwise we might have to replace call_sched_rcu with > synchronize_sched() in kmemcg_deactivate_workfn which I would not > prefer as that would holdup the kmem_cache workqueue. > > +Paul > > Paul, we have a situation something similar to the following pseudo code. > > CPU0: > lock(l) > if (!flag) > call_rcu_sched(callback); > unlock(l) > ------ > CPU1: > lock(l) > flag = true > unlock(l) > synchronize_sched() > ------ > > If CPU0 has called already called call_rchu_sched(callback) then later > if CPU1 calls synchronize_sched(). Is there any guarantee that on > return from synchronize_sched(), the rcu callback scheduled by CPU0 > has already been executed? No. There is no such guarantee. You instead want rcu_barrier_sched(), which waits for the callbacks from all prior invocations of call_rcu_sched() to be invoked. Please note that synchronize_sched() is -not- sufficient. It is only guaranteed to wait for a grace period, not necessarily for all prior callbacks. This goes both directions because if there are no callbacks in the system, then rcu_barrier_sched() is within its rights to return immediately. So please make sure you use each of synchronize_sched() and rcu_barrier_sched() to do the job that it was intended to do! ;-) If your lock(l) is shorthand for spin_lock(&l), it looks to me like you actually only need rcu_barrier_sched(): CPU0: spin_lock(&l); if (!flag) call_rcu_sched(callback); spin_unlock(&l); CPU1: spin_lock(&l); flag = true; spin_unlock(&l); /* At this point, no more callbacks will be registered. */ rcu_barrier_sched(); /* At this point, all registered callbacks will have been invoked. */ On the other hand, if your "lock(l)" was instead shorthand for rcu_read_lock_sched(), then you need -both- synchronize_sched() -and- rcu_barrier(). And even then, you will be broken in -rt kernels. (Which might or might not be a concern, depending on whether your code matters to -rt kernels. Make sense? Thanx, Paul