[PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache_free callback

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/18/24 7:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 07:21:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 6/18/24 6:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:31:00AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >> >> > On 6/17/24 8:42 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >> >> > >> +
> >> >> > >> +	s = container_of(work, struct kmem_cache, async_destroy_work);
> >> >> > >> +
> >> >> > >> +	// XXX use the real kmem_cache_free_barrier() or similar thing here
> >> >> > > It implies that we need to introduce kfree_rcu_barrier(), a new API, which i
> >> >> > > wanted to avoid initially.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > I wanted to avoid new API or flags for kfree_rcu() users and this would
> >> >> > be achieved. The barrier is used internally so I don't consider that an
> >> >> > API to avoid. How difficult is the implementation is another question,
> >> >> > depending on how the current batching works. Once (if) we have sheaves
> >> >> > proven to work and move kfree_rcu() fully into SLUB, the barrier might
> >> >> > also look different and hopefully easier. So maybe it's not worth to
> >> >> > invest too much into that barrier and just go for the potentially
> >> >> > longer, but easier to implement?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> Right. I agree here. If the cache is not empty, OK, we just defer the
> >> >> work, even we can use a big 21 seconds delay, after that we just "warn"
> >> >> if it is still not empty and leave it as it is, i.e. emit a warning and
> >> >> we are done.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Destroying the cache is not something that must happen right away. 
> >> > 
> >> > OK, I have to ask...
> >> > 
> >> > Suppose that the cache is created and destroyed by a module and
> >> > init/cleanup time, respectively.  Suppose that this module is rmmod'ed
> >> > then very quickly insmod'ed.
> >> > 
> >> > Do we need to fail the insmod if the kmem_cache has not yet been fully
> >> > cleaned up?
> >> 
> >> We don't have any such link between kmem_cache and module to detect that, so
> >> we would have to start tracking that. Probably not worth the trouble.
> > 
> > Fair enough!
> > 
> >> >  If not, do we have two versions of the same kmem_cache in
> >> > /proc during the overlap time?
> >> 
> >> Hm could happen in /proc/slabinfo but without being harmful other than
> >> perhaps confusing someone. We could filter out the caches being destroyed
> >> trivially.
> > 
> > Or mark them in /proc/slabinfo?  Yet another column, yay!!!  Or script
> > breakage from flagging the name somehow, for example, trailing "/"
> > character.
> 
> Yeah I've been resisting such changes to the layout and this wouldn't be
> worth it, apart from changing the name itself but not in a dangerous way
> like with "/" :)
> 
> >> Sysfs and debugfs might be more problematic as I suppose directory names
> >> would clash. I'll have to check... might be even happening now when we do
> >> detect leaked objects and just leave the cache around... thanks for the
> >> question.
> > 
> > "It is a service that I provide."  ;-)
> > 
> > But yes, we might be living with it already and there might already
> > be ways people deal with it.
> 
> So it seems if the sysfs/debugfs directories already exist, they will
> silently not be created. Wonder if we have such cases today already because
> caches with same name exist. I think we do with the zsmalloc using 32 caches
> with same name that we discussed elsewhere just recently.
> 
> Also indeed if the cache has leaked objects and won't be thus destroyed,
> these directories indeed stay around, as well as the slabinfo entry, and can
> prevent new ones from being created (slabinfo lines with same name are not
> prevented).
> 
> But it wouldn't be great to introduce this possibility to happen for the
> temporarily delayed removal due to kfree_rcu() and a module re-insert, since
> that's a legitimate case and not buggy state due to leaks.
> 
> The debugfs directory we could remove immediately before handing over to the
> scheduled workfn, but if it turns out there was a leak and the workfn leaves
> the cache around, debugfs dir will be gone and we can't check the
> alloc_traces/free_traces files there (but we have the per-object info
> including the traces in the dmesg splat).
> 
> The sysfs directory is currently removed only with the whole cache being
> destryed due to sysfs/kobject lifetime model. I'd love to untangle it for
> other reasons too, but haven't investigated it yet. But again it might be
> useful for sysfs dir to stay around for inspection, as for the debugfs.
> 
> We could rename the sysfs/debugfs directories before queuing the work? Add
> some prefix like GOING_AWAY-$name. If leak is detected and cache stays
> forever, another rename to LEAKED-$name. (and same for the slabinfo). But
> multiple ones with same name might pile up, so try adding a counter then?
> Probably messy to implement, but perhaps the most robust in the end? The
> automatic counter could also solve the general case of people using same
> name for multiple caches.
> 
> Other ideas?
> 
One question. Maybe it is already late but it is better to ask rather than not.

What do you think if we have a small discussion about it on the LPC 2024 as a
topic? It might be it is already late or a schedule is set by now. Or we fix
it by a conference time.

Just a thought.

--
Uladzislau Rezki