From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: use free_page instead of put_page for freeing kmalloc allocation
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:10:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120802171019.GA1239@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <501AB013.1090607@parallels.com>
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:51:31PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 08:42 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:06:41AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >>> index e517d43..9ca4e20 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >>> @@ -3453,7 +3453,7 @@ void kfree(const void *x)
> >>> if (unlikely(!PageSlab(page))) {
> >>> BUG_ON(!PageCompound(page));
> >>> kmemleak_free(x);
> >>> - put_page(page);
> >>> + __free_pages(page, compound_order(page));
> >>
> >> Hmmm... put_page would have called put_compound_page(). which would have
> >> called the dtor function. dtor is set to __free_pages() ok which does
> >> mlock checks and verifies that the page is in a proper condition for
> >> freeing. Then it calls free_one_page().
> >>
> >> __free_pages() decrements the refcount and then calls __free_pages_ok().
> >>
> >> So we loose the checking and the dtor stuff with this patch. Guess that is
> >> ok?
> >
> > The changelog is not correct, however. People DO get pages underlying
> > slab objects and even free the slab objects before returning the page.
> > See recent fix:
>
> Well, yes, in the sense that slab objects are page-backed.
>
> The point is that a user of kmalloc/kfree should not treat a memory area
> as if it were a page, even if it is page-sized.
I whole-heartedly agree. But it's hard to verify there aren't any
doing that. And even though it's ugly to do, it's technically
working, no? No longer supporting it would be a regression.
> If it is just the Changelog you are unhappy about, I can do another
> submission rewording it.
__free_pages still respects the refcount, so I think the Changelog is
not actually appropriate for the change you're making. You're just
changing what Christoph outlined above, the compound page handling.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: use free_page instead of put_page for freeing kmalloc allocation
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:10:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120802171019.GA1239@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <501AB013.1090607@parallels.com>
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:51:31PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 08:42 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:06:41AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >>> index e517d43..9ca4e20 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >>> @@ -3453,7 +3453,7 @@ void kfree(const void *x)
> >>> if (unlikely(!PageSlab(page))) {
> >>> BUG_ON(!PageCompound(page));
> >>> kmemleak_free(x);
> >>> - put_page(page);
> >>> + __free_pages(page, compound_order(page));
> >>
> >> Hmmm... put_page would have called put_compound_page(). which would have
> >> called the dtor function. dtor is set to __free_pages() ok which does
> >> mlock checks and verifies that the page is in a proper condition for
> >> freeing. Then it calls free_one_page().
> >>
> >> __free_pages() decrements the refcount and then calls __free_pages_ok().
> >>
> >> So we loose the checking and the dtor stuff with this patch. Guess that is
> >> ok?
> >
> > The changelog is not correct, however. People DO get pages underlying
> > slab objects and even free the slab objects before returning the page.
> > See recent fix:
>
> Well, yes, in the sense that slab objects are page-backed.
>
> The point is that a user of kmalloc/kfree should not treat a memory area
> as if it were a page, even if it is page-sized.
I whole-heartedly agree. But it's hard to verify there aren't any
doing that. And even though it's ugly to do, it's technically
working, no? No longer supporting it would be a regression.
> If it is just the Changelog you are unhappy about, I can do another
> submission rewording it.
__free_pages still respects the refcount, so I think the Changelog is
not actually appropriate for the change you're making. You're just
changing what Christoph outlined above, the compound page handling.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-02 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-02 13:11 [PATCH] slub: use free_page instead of put_page for freeing kmalloc allocation Glauber Costa
2012-08-02 13:11 ` Glauber Costa
2012-08-02 14:06 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-08-02 14:06 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-08-02 16:42 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-08-02 16:42 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-08-02 16:51 ` Glauber Costa
2012-08-02 16:51 ` Glauber Costa
2012-08-02 17:10 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2012-08-02 17:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-08-02 17:24 ` Glauber Costa
2012-08-02 17:24 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120802171019.GA1239@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.