All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
	roman.gushchin@linux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
	rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org, cl@gentwo.de,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 20:10:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a97e0e17-e4cc-8cc8-673d-28966b95a42b@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ys6cymrtnHNlCDG9@ip-172-31-24-42.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal>



On 7/13/22 6:22 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:28:05AM +0800, Rongwei Wang wrote:
>> In use cases where allocating and freeing slab frequently, some
>> error messages, such as "Left Redzone overwritten", "First byte
>> 0xbb instead of 0xcc" would be printed when validating slabs.
>> That's because an object has been filled with SLAB_RED_INACTIVE,
>> but has not been added to slab's freelist. And between these
>> two states, the behaviour of validating slab is likely to occur.
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't mean the slab can not work stably. But, these
>> confusing messages will disturb slab debugging more or less.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/slub.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> This makes the code more complex.
> 
> A part of me says it may be more pleasant to split implementation
> allocating from caches for debugging. That would make it simpler.
> 
> something like:
> 
> __slab_alloc() {
> 	if (kmem_cache_debug(s))
> 		slab_alloc_debug()
> 	else
> 		___slab_alloc()
> }
> 
> slab_free() {
> 	if (kmem_cache_debug(s))
> 		slab_free_debug()
> 	else
> 		__do_slab_free()
> }
Oh, I also have same idea, but not sure whether it is accepted because 
of it needs more changes than now. Since you agree with this way, I can
rewrite this code.

Thanks.
> 
> See also:
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/faf416b9-f46c-8534-7fb7-557c046a564d@suse.cz/
Thanks, it seems that I had missed it.
> 
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index b1281b8654bd..e950d8df8380 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -1391,18 +1391,16 @@ static noinline int free_debug_processing(
>>   	void *head, void *tail, int bulk_cnt,
>>   	unsigned long addr)
>>   {
>> -	struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>>   	void *object = head;
>>   	int cnt = 0;
>> -	unsigned long flags, flags2;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>   	int ret = 0;
>>   	depot_stack_handle_t handle = 0;
>>   
>>   	if (s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)
>>   		handle = set_track_prepare();
>>   
>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> -	slab_lock(slab, &flags2);
>> +	slab_lock(slab, &flags);
>>   
>>   	if (s->flags & SLAB_CONSISTENCY_CHECKS) {
>>   		if (!check_slab(s, slab))
>> @@ -1435,8 +1433,7 @@ static noinline int free_debug_processing(
>>   		slab_err(s, slab, "Bulk freelist count(%d) invalid(%d)\n",
>>   			 bulk_cnt, cnt);
>>   
>> -	slab_unlock(slab, &flags2);
>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +	slab_unlock(slab, &flags);
>>   	if (!ret)
>>   		slab_fix(s, "Object at 0x%p not freed", object);
>>   	return ret;
>> @@ -3330,7 +3327,7 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>>   
>>   {
>>   	void *prior;
>> -	int was_frozen;
>> +	int was_frozen, to_take_off = 0;
>>   	struct slab new;
>>   	unsigned long counters;
>>   	struct kmem_cache_node *n = NULL;
>> @@ -3341,14 +3338,23 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>>   	if (kfence_free(head))
>>   		return;
>>   
>> -	if (kmem_cache_debug(s) &&
>> -	    !free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr))
>> -		return;
>> +	n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>> +	if (kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>> +		int ret;
>>   
>> -	do {
>> -		if (unlikely(n)) {
>> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +		ret = free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr);
>> +		if (!ret) {
>>   			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> -			n = NULL;
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		if (unlikely(to_take_off)) {
>> +			if (!kmem_cache_debug(s))
>> +				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +			to_take_off = 0;
>>   		}
>>   		prior = slab->freelist;
>>   		counters = slab->counters;
>> @@ -3369,8 +3375,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>>   				new.frozen = 1;
>>   
>>   			} else { /* Needs to be taken off a list */
>> -
>> -				n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>>   				/*
>>   				 * Speculatively acquire the list_lock.
>>   				 * If the cmpxchg does not succeed then we may
>> @@ -3379,8 +3383,10 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>>   				 * Otherwise the list_lock will synchronize with
>>   				 * other processors updating the list of slabs.
>>   				 */
>> -				spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +				if (!kmem_cache_debug(s))
>> +					spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>>   
>> +				to_take_off = 1;
>>   			}
>>   		}
>>   
>> @@ -3389,8 +3395,9 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>>   		head, new.counters,
>>   		"__slab_free"));
>>   
>> -	if (likely(!n)) {
>> -
>> +	if (likely(!to_take_off)) {
>> +		if (kmem_cache_debug(s))
>> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>>   		if (likely(was_frozen)) {
>>   			/*
>>   			 * The list lock was not taken therefore no list
>> -- 
>> 2.27.0
>>


      reply	other threads:[~2022-07-13 12:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-12  2:28 [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free Rongwei Wang
2022-07-12  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/slub: improve consistency of nr_slabs count Rongwei Wang
2022-07-12  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/slub: delete confusing pr_err when debugging slub Rongwei Wang
2022-07-12  2:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free Rongwei Wang
2022-07-13 10:22 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-07-13 12:10   ` Rongwei Wang [this message]

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=a97e0e17-e4cc-8cc8-673d-28966b95a42b@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.de \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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.