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

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 09:48:49AM -0700, 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?  If not, do we have two versions of the same kmem_cache in
> /proc during the overlap time?
> 
No fail :) If same cache is created several times, its s->refcount gets
increased, so, it does not create two entries in the "slabinfo". But i
agree that your point is good! We need to be carefully with removing and
simultaneous creating.

>From the first glance, there is a refcounter and a global "slab_mutex"
which is used to protect a critical section. Destroying is almost fully
protected(as noted above, by a global mutex) with one exception, it is:

static void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
{
	if (slab_state >= FULL) {
		sysfs_slab_unlink(s);
		sysfs_slab_release(s);
	} else {
		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
	}
}

this one can race, IMO.

--
Uladzislau Rezki