From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] v2 mm/slub: restore/expand unfreeze_partials() local exclusion scope
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 23:19:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd10ebb3-7687-6e8d-8984-3dfb9cd0e927@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <476d147ab6eec386a1e8b8e11cb09708377f8c3e.camel@gmx.de>
On 7/17/21 4:58 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 18:34 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> Greetings crickets,
>>
>> Methinks he problem is the hole these patches opened only for RT.
>>
>> static void put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>> int drain)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
>> struct page *oldpage;
>> int pages;
>> int pobjects;
>>
>> slub_get_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Bah, I'm tired of waiting to see what if anything mm folks do about
> this little bugger, so I'm gonna step on it my damn self and be done
> with it. Fly or die little patchlet.
>
> mm/slub: restore/expand unfreeze_partials() local exclusion scope
>
> 2180da7ea70a ("mm, slub: use migrate_disable() on PREEMPT_RT") replaced
> preempt_disable() in put_cpu_partial() with migrate_disable(), which when
> combined with ___slab_alloc() having become preemptibile, leads to
> kmem_cache_free()/kfree() blowing through ___slab_alloc() unimpeded,
> and vice versa, resulting in PREMPT_RT exclusive explosions in both
> paths while stress testing with both SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL/MEMCG enabled,
> ___slab_alloc() during allocation (duh), and __unfreeze_partials()
> during free, both while accessing an unmapped page->freelist.
>
> Serialize put_cpu_partial()/unfreeze_partials() on cpu_slab->lock to
Hm you mention put_cpu_partial() but your patch handles only the
unfreeze_partial() call from that function? If I understand the problem
correctly, all modifications of cpu_slab->partial has to be protected
on RT after the local_lock conversion, thus also the one that
put_cpu_partial() does by itself (via this_cpu_cmpxchg).
On the other hand the slub_cpu_dead() part should really be unnecessary,
as tglx pointed out.
How about the patch below? It handles also the recursion issue
differently by not locking around __unfreeze_partials().
If that works, I can think of making it less ugly :/
----8<----
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 581004a5aca9..1c7a41460941 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2437,6 +2437,9 @@ static void unfreeze_partials(struct kmem_cache *s)
{
struct page *partial_page;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+ local_lock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+#endif
do {
partial_page = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->partial);
@@ -2444,6 +2447,9 @@ static void unfreeze_partials(struct kmem_cache *s)
this_cpu_cmpxchg(s->cpu_slab->partial, partial_page, NULL)
!= partial_page);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+ local_unlock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+#endif
if (partial_page)
__unfreeze_partials(s, partial_page);
}
@@ -2482,7 +2488,11 @@ static void put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, int drain)
int pages;
int pobjects;
- slub_get_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+ get_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+#else
+ local_lock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+#endif
do {
pages = 0;
pobjects = 0;
@@ -2496,7 +2506,15 @@ static void put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, int drain)
* partial array is full. Move the existing
* set to the per node partial list.
*/
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
unfreeze_partials(s);
+#else
+ this_cpu_write(s->cpu_slab->partial, NULL);
+ local_unlock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+ __unfreeze_partials(s, oldpage);
+ local_lock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+#endif
+
oldpage = NULL;
pobjects = 0;
pages = 0;
@@ -2513,7 +2531,11 @@ static void put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, int drain)
} while (this_cpu_cmpxchg(s->cpu_slab->partial, oldpage, page)
!= oldpage);
- slub_put_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREMPT_RT
+ put_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+#else
+ local_unlock(&s->cpu_slab->lock);
+#endif
#endif /* CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL */
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-18 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-08 9:42 [ANNOUNCE] v5.13-rt1 Thomas Gleixner
2021-07-09 5:20 ` [patch] mm/slub: Fix kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() error path Mike Galbraith
2021-07-09 5:20 ` [patch] mm/slub: Replace do_slab_free() local_lock_irqsave/restore() calls in PREEMPT_RT scope Mike Galbraith
2021-07-09 5:21 ` [rfc/patch] mm/slub: restore/expand unfreeze_partials() local exclusion scope Mike Galbraith
2021-07-09 5:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-09 19:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-07-10 1:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-15 16:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-17 14:58 ` [patch] v2 " Mike Galbraith
2021-07-18 7:58 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-18 8:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-18 15:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-18 21:19 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-07-19 4:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-19 13:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-20 2:46 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-20 8:56 ` [rfc/patch] " Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-20 11:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-21 4:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-21 8:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-21 9:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-23 22:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-24 2:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-25 14:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-25 14:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-25 15:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-25 16:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-25 19:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-25 19:34 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-26 10:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-26 17:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-26 21:26 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-27 4:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-28 16:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-29 4:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-07-29 9:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=dd10ebb3-7687-6e8d-8984-3dfb9cd0e927@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).