tree 0fc18e33fa1b43543837e99a0f09c77f686f327b
parent a44b56d354b49f9abb184e5a14f71889856283bb
author Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> 1165465934 -0800
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@woody.osdl.org> 1165509561 -0800

[PATCH] mm: slab: eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab

Here's an attempt towards doing away with lock_cpu_hotplug in the slab
subsystem.  This approach also fixes a bug which shows up when cpus are
being offlined/onlined and slab caches are being tuned simultaneously.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116098888100481&w=2

The patch has been stress tested overnight on a 2 socket 4 core AMD box with
repeated cpu online and offline, while dbench and kernbench process are
running, and slab caches being tuned at the same time.
There were no lockdep warnings either.  (This test on 2,6.18 as 2.6.19-rc
crashes at __drain_pages
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116172164217678&w=2 )

The approach here is to hold cache_chain_mutex from CPU_UP_PREPARE until
CPU_ONLINE (similar in approach as worqueue_mutex) .  Slab code sensitive
to cpu_online_map (kmem_cache_create, kmem_cache_destroy, slabinfo_write,
__cache_shrink) is already serialized with cache_chain_mutex.  (This patch
lengthens cache_chain_mutex hold time at kmem_cache_destroy to cover this).
 This patch also takes the cache_chain_sem at kmem_cache_shrink to protect
sanity of cpu_online_map at __cache_shrink, as viewed by slab.
(kmem_cache_shrink->__cache_shrink->drain_cpu_caches).  But, really,
kmem_cache_shrink is used at just one place in the acpi subsystem!  Do we
really need to keep kmem_cache_shrink at all?

Another note.  Looks like a cpu hotplug event can send  CPU_UP_CANCELED to
a registered subsystem even if the subsystem did not receive CPU_UP_PREPARE.
This could be due to a subsystem registered for notification earlier than
the current subsystem crapping out with NOTIFY_BAD. Badness can occur with
in the CPU_UP_CANCELED code path at slab if this happens (The same would
apply for workqueue.c as well).  To overcome this, we might have to use either
a) a per subsystem flag and avoid handling of CPU_UP_CANCELED, or
b) Use a special notifier events like LOCK_ACQUIRE/RELEASE as Gautham was
   using in his experiments, or
c) Do not send CPU_UP_CANCELED to a subsystem which did not receive
   CPU_UP_PREPARE.

I would prefer c).

Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>