[Devel] [PATCH 4/6] memcg, slab: check and init memcg_cahes under slab_mutex

[Michal Hocko]

On Thu 19-12-13 12:00:58, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Vladimir Davydov
> <vdavydov at parallels.com> wrote:
> > On 12/18/2013 09:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 18-12-13 17:16:55, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >>> The memcg_params::memcg_caches array can be updated concurrently from
> >>> memcg_update_cache_size() and memcg_create_kmem_cache(). Although both
> >>> of these functions take the slab_mutex during their operation, the
> >>> latter checks if memcg's cache has already been allocated w/o taking the
> >>> mutex. This can result in a race as described below.
> >>>
> >>> Asume two threads schedule kmem_cache creation works for the same
> >>> kmem_cache of the same memcg from __memcg_kmem_get_cache(). One of the
> >>> works successfully creates it. Another work should fail then, but if it
> >>> interleaves with memcg_update_cache_size() as follows, it does not:
> >> I am not sure I understand the race. memcg_update_cache_size is called
> >> when we start accounting a new memcg or a child is created and it
> >> inherits accounting from the parent. memcg_create_kmem_cache is called
> >> when a new cache is first allocated from, right?
> >
> > memcg_update_cache_size() is called when kmem accounting is activated
> > for a memcg, no matter how.
> >
> > memcg_create_kmem_cache() is scheduled from __memcg_kmem_get_cache().
> > It's OK to have a bunch of such methods trying to create the same memcg
> > cache concurrently, but only one of them should succeed.
> >
> >> Why cannot we simply take slab_mutex inside memcg_create_kmem_cache?
> >> it is running from the workqueue context so it should clash with other
> >> locks.
> >
> > Hmm, Glauber's code never takes the slab_mutex inside memcontrol.c. I
> > have always been wondering why, because it could simplify flow paths
> > significantly (e.g. update_cache_sizes() -> update_all_caches() ->
> > update_cache_size() - from memcontrol.c to slab_common.c and back again
> > just to take the mutex).
> >
> 
> Because that is a layering violation and exposes implementation
> details of the slab to
> the outside world. I agree this would make things a lot simpler, but
> please check with Christoph
> if this is acceptable before going forward.

We do not have to expose the lock directly. We can hide it behind a
helper function. Relying on the lock silently at many places is worse
then expose it IMHO.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs