[PATCH v2] zsmalloc: do not take class lock in zs_shrinker_count()

[PATCH v2] zsmalloc: do not take class lock in zs_shrinker_count()

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

We can avoid taking class ->lock around zs_can_compact() in
zs_shrinker_count(), because the number that we return back
is outdated in general case, by design. We have different
sources that are able to change class's state right after we
return from zs_can_compact() -- ongoing I/O operations, manually
triggered compaction, or two of them happening simultaneously.

We re-do this calculations during compaction on a per class basis
anyway.

zs_unregister_shrinker() will not return until we have an
active shrinker, so classes won't unexpectedly disappear
while zs_shrinker_count() iterates them.

Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
---
 mm/zsmalloc.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
index 1edd8a0..ed64cf5 100644
--- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
@@ -1836,9 +1836,7 @@ static unsigned long zs_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker,
 		if (class->index != i)
 			continue;
 
-		spin_lock(&class->lock);
 		pages_to_free += zs_can_compact(class);
-		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
 	}
 
 	return pages_to_free;
-- 
2.4.6

Re: [PATCH v2] zsmalloc: do not take class lock in zs_shrinker_count()

[Minchan Kim]

Hi Sergey,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:18:18PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> We can avoid taking class ->lock around zs_can_compact() in
> zs_shrinker_count(), because the number that we return back
> is outdated in general case, by design. We have different
> sources that are able to change class's state right after we
> return from zs_can_compact() -- ongoing I/O operations, manually
> triggered compaction, or two of them happening simultaneously.
> 
> We re-do this calculations during compaction on a per class basis
> anyway.
> 
> zs_unregister_shrinker() will not return until we have an
> active shrinker, so classes won't unexpectedly disappear
> while zs_shrinker_count() iterates them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>

I asked to remove the comment of zs_can_compact about lock.
"Should be called under class->lock."

Otherwise,

Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

> ---
>  mm/zsmalloc.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index 1edd8a0..ed64cf5 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -1836,9 +1836,7 @@ static unsigned long zs_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker,
>  		if (class->index != i)
>  			continue;
>  
> -		spin_lock(&class->lock);
>  		pages_to_free += zs_can_compact(class);
> -		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	return pages_to_free;
> -- 
> 2.4.6
> 

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

Re: [PATCH v2] zsmalloc: do not take class lock in zs_shrinker_count()

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

Hi,

On (07/18/15 07:42), Minchan Kim wrote:
> I asked to remove the comment of zs_can_compact about lock.
> "Should be called under class->lock."

Oh... I somehow quickly read it and thought you were talking
about the commit message. Fixed and resent.

> Otherwise,
> 
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

Thanks.

	-ss

> > ---
> >  mm/zsmalloc.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > index 1edd8a0..ed64cf5 100644
> > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > @@ -1836,9 +1836,7 @@ static unsigned long zs_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> >  		if (class->index != i)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		spin_lock(&class->lock);
> >  		pages_to_free += zs_can_compact(class);
> > -		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return pages_to_free;
> > -- 
> > 2.4.6
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>