Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/vmap: move BUG_ON() check to the unlink_va()

Uladzislau Rezki
2019-05-29T13:58:30Z

Hello, Roman!

> > Move the BUG_ON()/RB_EMPTY_NODE() check under unlink_va()
> > function, it means if an empty node gets freed it is a BUG
> > thus is considered as faulty behaviour.
>
> It's not exactly clear from the description, why it's better.
>
It is rather about if "unlink" happens on unhandled node it is
faulty behavior. Something that clearly written in stone. We used
to call "unlink" on detached node during merge, but after:

[PATCH v3 3/4] mm/vmap: get rid of one single unlink_va() when merge

it is not supposed to be ever happened across the logic.

>
> Also, do we really need a BUG_ON() in either place?
>
Historically we used to have the BUG_ON there. We can get rid of it
for sure. But in this case, it would be harder to find a head or tail
of it when the crash occurs, soon or later.

> Isn't something like this better?
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index c42872ed82ac..2df0e86d6aff 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1118,7 +1118,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_vmap_purge_notifier);
>
> static void __free_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> {
> - BUG_ON(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&va->rb_node));
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&va->rb_node)))
> + return;
>
I was thinking about WARN_ON_ONCE. The concern was about if the
message gets lost due to kernel ring buffer. Therefore i used that.
I am not sure if we have something like WARN_ONE_RATELIMIT that
would be the best i think. At least it would indicate if a warning
happens periodically or not.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for the comments!

--
Vlad Rezki