From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753610AbdKJSQS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:16:18 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:40045 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753562AbdKJSQR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:16:17 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYiDZyEBPRUL7WhezExoGUKhZ8Uk3qBkBEMkEyLSnnhlW+uxJ3pgvE2JgqWptUTsLcdatWUHD9tQt8hHqLEiCE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201711100646.IJH39597.HOtMLJVSFOQFOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
References: <20171108173740.115166-1-shakeelb@google.com> <2940c150-577a-30a8-fac3-cf59a49b84b4@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CALvZod5NVQO+dWKD0y4pK-JYXdehLLgKm0bfc7ExPzyRLDeqzw@mail.gmail.com> <201711100646.IJH39597.HOtMLJVSFOQFOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:16:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CALvZod4HAVpmPyE7k_Brme=mzic8SDO8gyAFtDhW9r0oBurN4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, shrinker: make shrinker_list lockless
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> > If you can accept serialized register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker(),
>> > I think that something like shown below can do it.
>>
>> If we assume that we will never do register_shrinker and
>> unregister_shrinker on the same object in parallel then do we still
>> need to do msleep & synchronize_rcu() within mutex?
>
> Doing register_shrinker() and unregister_shrinker() on the same object
> in parallel is wrong. This mutex is to ensure that we do not need to
> worry about ->list.next field. synchronize_rcu() should not be slow.
> If you want to avoid msleep() with mutex held, you can also apply
>
>> > If you want parallel register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker(), something like
>> > shown below on top of shown above will do it.
>
> change.

Thanks for the explanation. Can you post the patch for others to
review without parallel register/unregister and SHRINKER_PERMANENT (we
can add when we need them)? You can use the motivation for the patch I
mentioned in my patch instead.