All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: annotate on-slab caches nodelist locks
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:11:03 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50922087.6080300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351507779-26847-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>

On 10/29/2012 06:49 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> We currently provide lockdep annotation for kmalloc caches, and also
> caches that have SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS enabled. The reason for this is that
> we can quite frequently nest in the l3->list_lock lock, which is not
> something trivial to avoid.
> 
> My proposal with this patch, is to extend this to caches whose slab
> management object lives within the slab as well ("on_slab"). The need
> for this arose in the context of testing kmemcg-slab patches. With such
> patchset, we can have per-memcg kmalloc caches. So the same path that
> led to nesting between kmalloc caches will could then lead to in-memcg
> nesting. Because they are not annotated, lockdep will trigger.

Hi, Glauber

I'm trying to understand what's the issue we are trying to solve, but
looks like I need some help...

So allow me to ask few questions:

1. what's scene will cause the fake dead lock?
2. what's the conflict caches?
3. how does their lock operation nested?

And I think it will be better if we have the bug log in patch comment,
so folks will easily know what's the reason we need this patch ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> CC: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> Instead of "on_slab", I considered checking the memcg cache's root
> cache, and annotating that only in case this is a kmalloc cache.
> I ended up annotating on_slab caches, because given how frequently
> those locks can nest, it seemed like a safe choice to go. I was
> a little bit inspired by the key's name as well, that indicated
> this could work for all on_slab caches. Let me know if you guys
> want a different test condition for this.
> ---
>  mm/slab.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 9b7f6b63..ef1c8b3 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -654,6 +654,26 @@ static void init_node_lock_keys(int q)
>  	}
>  }
> 
> +static void on_slab_lock_classes_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int q)
> +{
> +	struct kmem_list3 *l3;
> +	l3 = cachep->nodelists[q];
> +	if (!l3)
> +		return;
> +
> +	slab_set_lock_classes(cachep, &on_slab_l3_key,
> +			&on_slab_alc_key, q);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void on_slab_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> +{
> +	int node;
> +
> +	VM_BUG_ON(OFF_SLAB(cachep));
> +	for_each_node(node)
> +		on_slab_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
> +}
> +
>  static inline void init_lock_keys(void)
>  {
>  	int node;
> @@ -670,6 +690,10 @@ static inline void init_lock_keys(void)
>  {
>  }
> 
> +static inline void on_slab_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> +{
> +}
> +
>  static void slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int node)
>  {
>  }
> @@ -1397,6 +1421,9 @@ static int __cpuinit cpuup_prepare(long cpu)
>  		free_alien_cache(alien);
>  		if (cachep->flags & SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS)
>  			slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
> +		else if (!OFF_SLAB(cachep) &&
> +			 !(cachep->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> +			on_slab_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
>  	}
>  	init_node_lock_keys(node);
> 
> @@ -2554,7 +2581,8 @@ __kmem_cache_create (struct kmem_cache *cachep, unsigned long flags)
>  		WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU);
> 
>  		slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes(cachep);
> -	}
> +	} else if (!OFF_SLAB(cachep) && !(flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> +		on_slab_lock_classes(cachep);
> 
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

--
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: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: annotate on-slab caches nodelist locks
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:11:03 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50922087.6080300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351507779-26847-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>

On 10/29/2012 06:49 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> We currently provide lockdep annotation for kmalloc caches, and also
> caches that have SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS enabled. The reason for this is that
> we can quite frequently nest in the l3->list_lock lock, which is not
> something trivial to avoid.
> 
> My proposal with this patch, is to extend this to caches whose slab
> management object lives within the slab as well ("on_slab"). The need
> for this arose in the context of testing kmemcg-slab patches. With such
> patchset, we can have per-memcg kmalloc caches. So the same path that
> led to nesting between kmalloc caches will could then lead to in-memcg
> nesting. Because they are not annotated, lockdep will trigger.

Hi, Glauber

I'm trying to understand what's the issue we are trying to solve, but
looks like I need some help...

So allow me to ask few questions:

1. what's scene will cause the fake dead lock?
2. what's the conflict caches?
3. how does their lock operation nested?

And I think it will be better if we have the bug log in patch comment,
so folks will easily know what's the reason we need this patch ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> CC: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> Instead of "on_slab", I considered checking the memcg cache's root
> cache, and annotating that only in case this is a kmalloc cache.
> I ended up annotating on_slab caches, because given how frequently
> those locks can nest, it seemed like a safe choice to go. I was
> a little bit inspired by the key's name as well, that indicated
> this could work for all on_slab caches. Let me know if you guys
> want a different test condition for this.
> ---
>  mm/slab.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 9b7f6b63..ef1c8b3 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -654,6 +654,26 @@ static void init_node_lock_keys(int q)
>  	}
>  }
> 
> +static void on_slab_lock_classes_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int q)
> +{
> +	struct kmem_list3 *l3;
> +	l3 = cachep->nodelists[q];
> +	if (!l3)
> +		return;
> +
> +	slab_set_lock_classes(cachep, &on_slab_l3_key,
> +			&on_slab_alc_key, q);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void on_slab_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> +{
> +	int node;
> +
> +	VM_BUG_ON(OFF_SLAB(cachep));
> +	for_each_node(node)
> +		on_slab_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
> +}
> +
>  static inline void init_lock_keys(void)
>  {
>  	int node;
> @@ -670,6 +690,10 @@ static inline void init_lock_keys(void)
>  {
>  }
> 
> +static inline void on_slab_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> +{
> +}
> +
>  static void slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int node)
>  {
>  }
> @@ -1397,6 +1421,9 @@ static int __cpuinit cpuup_prepare(long cpu)
>  		free_alien_cache(alien);
>  		if (cachep->flags & SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS)
>  			slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
> +		else if (!OFF_SLAB(cachep) &&
> +			 !(cachep->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> +			on_slab_lock_classes_node(cachep, node);
>  	}
>  	init_node_lock_keys(node);
> 
> @@ -2554,7 +2581,8 @@ __kmem_cache_create (struct kmem_cache *cachep, unsigned long flags)
>  		WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU);
> 
>  		slab_set_debugobj_lock_classes(cachep);
> -	}
> +	} else if (!OFF_SLAB(cachep) && !(flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> +		on_slab_lock_classes(cachep);
> 
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-01  7:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-29 10:49 [PATCH] slab: annotate on-slab caches nodelist locks Glauber Costa
2012-10-29 10:49 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-31  8:03 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-31  8:03   ` Pekka Enberg
2012-11-01  7:11 ` Michael Wang [this message]
2012-11-01  7:11   ` Michael Wang
2012-11-01 16:48   ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-01 16:48     ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-01  9:10     ` Michael Wang
2012-11-01  9:10       ` Michael Wang
2012-11-01 17:13       ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-01 17:13         ` 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=50922087.6080300@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=js1304@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --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.