All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drbd-user@lists.linbit.com,
	Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com>
Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [patch 1/2] block, drbd: fix drbd_req_new() initialization
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:45:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54FBA9A3.9070606@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1503071724050.4711@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On 03/07/2015 06:27 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>>>>> mempool_alloc() does not support __GFP_ZERO since elements may come from
>>>>> memory that has already been released by mempool_free().
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove __GFP_ZERO from mempool_alloc() in drbd_req_new() and properly
>>>>> initialize it to 0.
>>>>
>>>> You should add it to mempool instead, avoid having this issue show up for
>>>> other folks as well. It'd be trivial to do. Normal ->alloc() should honor
>>>> __GFP_ZERO, just do the same manually for removing an item from the internal
>>>> pool.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, it's not trivial to do and wouldn't make sense to do it.  Mempools 
>>
>> Uhm, it would make sense, though.
>>
> 
> Disagree, I don't think we should extend mempool to know the element size, 
> modify every user of mempool to pass it in, and keep it consistent with 
> mempool_alloc_t for the benefit of __GFP_ZERO for this one buggy caller.  
> Most users don't need __GFP_ZERO and just overwrite the entire element 
> after mempool_alloc() and it would be an unnecessary overhead to even 
> check for the bit set.  So it wouldn't make sense in terms of performance 
> or maintainability.

My point is that conceptually, of course it makes sense to do and it
_should_ do it. We don't have the size, too bad, I don't disagree that
adding it just for this is necessarily the best idea.

>>> don't know the element size, in other words it wouldn't know the length to 
>>> memset() to 0 for mempool_alloc().  It shouldn't be modified to know the 
>>> element size since elements are allocated by the implementation of 
>>> mempool_alloc_t and they could easily become inconsistent.  This patch is 
>>> what you want to merge, really.
>>>
>>
>> I forgot we don't have the size in there. Then I would suggest adding a
>> WARN_ON() for __GFP_ZERO being set in mempool_alloc(), at the very least.
>>
> 
> There is, it's a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() that will show up if you configure 
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM.

OK, that's good enough then.

-- 
Jens Axboe


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <drbd-user@lists.linbit.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] block, drbd: fix drbd_req_new() initialization
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:45:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54FBA9A3.9070606@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1503071724050.4711@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On 03/07/2015 06:27 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>>>>> mempool_alloc() does not support __GFP_ZERO since elements may come from
>>>>> memory that has already been released by mempool_free().
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove __GFP_ZERO from mempool_alloc() in drbd_req_new() and properly
>>>>> initialize it to 0.
>>>>
>>>> You should add it to mempool instead, avoid having this issue show up for
>>>> other folks as well. It'd be trivial to do. Normal ->alloc() should honor
>>>> __GFP_ZERO, just do the same manually for removing an item from the internal
>>>> pool.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, it's not trivial to do and wouldn't make sense to do it.  Mempools 
>>
>> Uhm, it would make sense, though.
>>
> 
> Disagree, I don't think we should extend mempool to know the element size, 
> modify every user of mempool to pass it in, and keep it consistent with 
> mempool_alloc_t for the benefit of __GFP_ZERO for this one buggy caller.  
> Most users don't need __GFP_ZERO and just overwrite the entire element 
> after mempool_alloc() and it would be an unnecessary overhead to even 
> check for the bit set.  So it wouldn't make sense in terms of performance 
> or maintainability.

My point is that conceptually, of course it makes sense to do and it
_should_ do it. We don't have the size, too bad, I don't disagree that
adding it just for this is necessarily the best idea.

>>> don't know the element size, in other words it wouldn't know the length to 
>>> memset() to 0 for mempool_alloc().  It shouldn't be modified to know the 
>>> element size since elements are allocated by the implementation of 
>>> mempool_alloc_t and they could easily become inconsistent.  This patch is 
>>> what you want to merge, really.
>>>
>>
>> I forgot we don't have the size in there. Then I would suggest adding a
>> WARN_ON() for __GFP_ZERO being set in mempool_alloc(), at the very least.
>>
> 
> There is, it's a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() that will show up if you configure 
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM.

OK, that's good enough then.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-12 23:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-08  0:24 [Drbd-dev] [patch 1/2] block, drbd: fix drbd_req_new() initialization David Rientjes
2015-03-08  0:24 ` David Rientjes
2015-03-08  0:24 ` [Drbd-dev] [patch 2/2] block, drbd: use mempool_create_slab_pool() David Rientjes
2015-03-08  0:24   ` David Rientjes
2015-03-08  0:33 ` [Drbd-dev] [patch 1/2] block, drbd: fix drbd_req_new() initialization Jens Axboe
2015-03-08  0:33   ` Jens Axboe
2015-03-08  0:53   ` [Drbd-dev] " David Rientjes
2015-03-08  0:53     ` David Rientjes
2015-03-08  1:03     ` [Drbd-dev] " Jens Axboe
2015-03-08  1:03       ` Jens Axboe
2015-03-08  1:27       ` [Drbd-dev] " David Rientjes
2015-03-08  1:27         ` David Rientjes
2015-03-08  1:45         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2015-03-08  1:45           ` Jens Axboe
2015-03-13 23:24         ` [Drbd-dev] " David Rientjes
2015-03-13 23:24           ` David Rientjes
2015-03-10 10:38 ` [Drbd-dev] [DRBD-user] " Lars Ellenberg
2015-03-10 10:38   ` Lars Ellenberg
2015-03-10 19:28   ` [Drbd-dev] " David Rientjes
2015-03-10 19:28     ` David Rientjes

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=54FBA9A3.9070606@fb.com \
    --to=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com \
    --cc=drbd-user@lists.linbit.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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.