Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] mm: rework non-root kmem_cache lifecycle management

[Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:37:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 5/28/19 1:08 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >>  static void flush_memcg_workqueue(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >>  {
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * memcg_params.dying is synchronized using slab_mutex AND
> >> +	 * memcg_kmem_wq_lock spinlock, because it's not always
> >> +	 * possible to grab slab_mutex.
> >> +	 */
> >>  	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> >> +	spin_lock(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> >>  	s->memcg_params.dying = true;
> >> +	spin_unlock(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> > I would completely switch from the mutex to the new spin lock -
> > acquiring them both looks weird.
> >
> >>  	mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> >>  
> >>  	/*
> 
> There are places where the slab_mutex is held and sleeping functions
> like kvzalloc() are called. I understand that taking both mutex and
> spinlocks look ugly, but converting all the slab_mutex critical sections
> to spinlock critical sections will be a major undertaking by itself. So
> I would suggest leaving that for now.

I didn't mean that. I meant taking spin_lock wherever we need to access
the 'dying' flag, even if slab_mutex is held. So that we don't need to
take mutex_lock in flush_memcg_workqueue, where it's used solely for
'dying' synchronization.