[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1246315553.21295.100.camel@calx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:45:53 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, jdb@...x.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fix RCU-callback-after-kmem_cache_destroy problem
in sl[aou]b
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 18:30 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Jesper noted that kmem_cache_destroy() invokes synchronize_rcu() rather
> > than rcu_barrier() in the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU case, which could result
> > in RCU callbacks accessing a kmem_cache after it had been destroyed.
> >
> > The following untested (might not even compile) patch proposes a fix.
>
> It could be seen to be the responsibility of the caller of
> kmem_cache_destroy to insure that no accesses are pending.
>
> If the caller specified destroy by rcu on cache creation then he also
> needs to be aware of not destroying the cache itself until all rcu actions
> are complete. This is similar to the caution that has to be execised then
> accessing cache data itself.
This is a reasonable point, and in keeping with the design principle
'callers should handle their own special cases'. However, I think it
would be more than a little surprising for kmem_cache_free() to do the
right thing, but not kmem_cache_destroy().
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists