linux-kernel - [PATCH 7/9] slab: use the lock on alien_cache, instead of the lock on array

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1392361043-22420-8-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:57:21 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] slab: use the lock on alien_cache, instead of the lock on array_cache

Now, we have separate alien_cache structure, so it'd be better to hold
the lock on alien_cache while manipulating alien_cache. After that,
we don't need the lock on array_cache, so remove it.

Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index c048ac5..ec1df4c 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -191,7 +191,6 @@ struct array_cache {
 	unsigned int limit;
 	unsigned int batchcount;
 	unsigned int touched;
-	spinlock_t lock;
 	void *entry[];	/*
 			 * Must have this definition in here for the proper
 			 * alignment of array_cache. Also simplifies accessing
@@ -484,7 +483,7 @@ static void slab_set_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
 		return;
 	for_each_node(r) {
 		if (alc[r])
-			lockdep_set_class(&(alc[r]->ac.lock), alc_key);
+			lockdep_set_class(&(alc[r]->lock), alc_key);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -761,7 +760,6 @@ static void init_arraycache(struct array_cache *ac, int limit, int batch)
 		ac->limit = limit;
 		ac->batchcount = batch;
 		ac->touched = 0;
-		spin_lock_init(&ac->lock);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -960,6 +958,7 @@ static struct alien_cache *__alloc_alien_cache(int node, int entries,
 
 	alc = kmalloc_node(memsize, gfp, node);
 	init_arraycache(&alc->ac, entries, batch);
+	spin_lock_init(&alc->lock);
 	return alc;
 }
 
@@ -1036,9 +1035,9 @@ static void reap_alien(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
 
 		if (alc) {
 			ac = &alc->ac;
-			if (ac->avail && spin_trylock_irq(&ac->lock)) {
+			if (ac->avail && spin_trylock_irq(&alc->lock)) {
 				__drain_alien_cache(cachep, ac, node);
-				spin_unlock_irq(&ac->lock);
+				spin_unlock_irq(&alc->lock);
 			}
 		}
 	}
@@ -1056,9 +1055,9 @@ static void drain_alien_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
 		alc = alien[i];
 		if (alc) {
 			ac = &alc->ac;
-			spin_lock_irqsave(&ac->lock, flags);
+			spin_lock_irqsave(&alc->lock, flags);
 			__drain_alien_cache(cachep, ac, i);
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ac->lock, flags);
+			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&alc->lock, flags);
 		}
 	}
 }
@@ -1086,13 +1085,13 @@ static inline int cache_free_alien(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp)
 	if (n->alien && n->alien[nodeid]) {
 		alien = n->alien[nodeid];
 		ac = &alien->ac;
-		spin_lock(&ac->lock);
+		spin_lock(&alien->lock);
 		if (unlikely(ac->avail == ac->limit)) {
 			STATS_INC_ACOVERFLOW(cachep);
 			__drain_alien_cache(cachep, ac, nodeid);
 		}
 		ac_put_obj(cachep, ac, objp);
-		spin_unlock(&ac->lock);
+		spin_unlock(&alien->lock);
 	} else {
 		spin_lock(&(cachep->node[nodeid])->list_lock);
 		free_block(cachep, &objp, 1, nodeid, &list);
@@ -1561,10 +1560,6 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
 
 		memcpy(ptr, cpu_cache_get(kmem_cache),
 		       sizeof(struct arraycache_init));
-		/*
-		 * Do not assume that spinlocks can be initialized via memcpy:
-		 */
-		spin_lock_init(&ptr->lock);
 
 		kmem_cache->array[smp_processor_id()] = ptr;
 
@@ -1574,10 +1569,6 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
 		       != &initarray_generic.cache);
 		memcpy(ptr, cpu_cache_get(kmalloc_caches[INDEX_AC]),
 		       sizeof(struct arraycache_init));
-		/*
-		 * Do not assume that spinlocks can be initialized via memcpy:
-		 */
-		spin_lock_init(&ptr->lock);
 
 		kmalloc_caches[INDEX_AC]->array[smp_processor_id()] = ptr;
 	}
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/