[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006280159010.28072@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmem_cache_destroy() badness with SLUB
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hi folks !
>
> Internally, I'm hitting a little "nit"...
>
> sysfs_slab_add() has this check:
>
> if (slab_state < SYSFS)
> /* Defer until later */
> return 0;
>
> But sysfs_slab_remove() doesn't.
>
> So if the slab is created -and- destroyed at, for example, arch_initcall
> time, then we hit a WARN in the kobject code, trying to dispose of a
> non-existing kobject.
>
Indeed, but shouldn't we be appropriately handling the return value of
sysfs_slab_add() so that it fails cache creation? We wouldn't be calling
sysfs_slab_remove() on a cache that was never created.
> Now, at first sight, just adding the same test to sysfs_slab_remove()
> would do the job... but it all seems very racy to me.
>
> I don't understand in fact how this slab_state deals with races at all.
>
All modifiers of slab_state are intended to be run only on the boot cpu so
the only concern is the ordering. We need slab_state to indicate how far
slab has been initialized since we can't otherwise enforce how code uses
slab in between things like kmem_cache_init(), kmem_cache_init_late(), and
initcalls on the boot cpu.
--
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