lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/11] mm/slab: hold a slab_mutex when calling __kmem_cache_shrink()
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 03/28/2016 08:26 AM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > Major kmem_cache metadata in slab subsystem is synchronized with
> > the slab_mutex. In SLAB, if some of them is changed, node's shared
> > array cache would be freed and re-populated. If __kmem_cache_shrink()
> > is called at the same time, it will call drain_array() with n->shared
> > without holding node lock so problem can happen.
> >
> > We can fix this small theoretical race condition by holding node lock
> > in drain_array(), but, holding a slab_mutex in kmem_cache_shrink()
> > looks more appropriate solution because stable state would make things
> > less error-prone and this is not performance critical path.
> >
> > In addtion, annotate on SLAB functions.
>
> Just a nit but would it not be better instead of doing comment-style
> annotation to use lockdep_assert_held/_once. In both cases for someone
> to understand what locks have to be held will go and read the source. In
> my mind it's easier to miss a comment line, rather than the
> lockdep_assert. Furthermore in case lockdep is enabled a locking
> violation would spew useful info to dmesg.

Good idea. I'm not sure if lockdep_assert is best fit but I will add
something to check it rather than just adding the comment.

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-01 04:41    [W:0.173 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site