[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190610203805.GA19363@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:38:13 +0000
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] mm: add missing smp read barrier on getting
memcg kmem_cache pointer
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 03:10:52PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:44:45PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > Johannes noticed that reading the memcg kmem_cache pointer in
> > > cache_from_memcg_idx() is performed using READ_ONCE() macro,
> > > which doesn't implement a SMP barrier, which is required
> > > by the logic.
> > >
> > > Add a proper smp_rmb() to be paired with smp_wmb() in
> > > memcg_create_kmem_cache().
> > >
> > > The same applies to memcg_create_kmem_cache() itself,
> > > which reads the same value without barriers and READ_ONCE().
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/slab.h | 1 +
> > > mm/slab_common.c | 3 ++-
> > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> > > index 739099af6cbb..1176b61bb8fc 100644
> > > --- a/mm/slab.h
> > > +++ b/mm/slab.h
> > > @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ cache_from_memcg_idx(struct kmem_cache *s, int idx)
> > > * memcg_caches issues a write barrier to match this (see
> > > * memcg_create_kmem_cache()).
> > > */
> > > + smp_rmb();
> > > cachep = READ_ONCE(arr->entries[idx]);
> >
> > Hmm, we used to have lockless_dereference() here, but it was replaced
> > with READ_ONCE some time ago. The commit message claims that READ_ONCE
> > has an implicit read barrier in it.
>
> Thanks for catching this Vladimir. I wasn't aware of this change to
> the memory model. Indeed, we don't need to change anything here.
Cool, I'm dropping this patch.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists