tree 78db67ebfe16c90a3133a427cca92d289f5b4555
parent 2bfd36374edd9ed7f2ebf66cacebedf7273901cb
author Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> 1620178574 -0700
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 1620239243 -0700

mm: vmscan: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation

Since memcg_shrinker_map_size just can be changed under holding
shrinker_rwsem exclusively, the read side can be protected by holding read
lock, so it sounds superfluous to have a dedicated mutex.

Kirill Tkhai suggested use write lock since:

  * We want the assignment to shrinker_maps is visible for shrink_slab_memcg().
  * The rcu_dereference_protected() dereferrencing in shrink_slab_memcg(), but
    in case of we use READ lock in alloc_shrinker_maps(), the dereferrencing
    is not actually protected.
  * READ lock makes alloc_shrinker_info() racy against memory allocation fail.
    alloc_shrinker_info()->free_shrinker_info() may free memory right after
    shrink_slab_memcg() dereferenced it. You may say
    shrink_slab_memcg()->mem_cgroup_online() protects us from it? Yes, sure,
    but this is not the thing we want to remember in the future, since this
    spreads modularity.

And a test with heavy paging workload didn't show write lock makes things worse.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210311190845.9708-4-shy828301@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>