[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef944ea5-c3cb-24e5-1ff8-b8e1008fa6ed@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:04:13 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: qiang.zhang@...driver.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, slub: add cpus_read_lock/unlock() for
slab_mem_going_offline_callback()
On 16.08.21 09:46, qiang.zhang@...driver.com wrote:
> From: "Qiang.Zhang" <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
>
> The flush_all_cpus_locked() should be called with cpus_read_lock/unlock(),
> ensure flush_cpu_slab() can be executed on schedule_on CPU.
>
> Fixes: 1c84f3c91640 ("mm, slub: fix memory and cpu hotplug related lock ordering issues")
Which branch contains this commit? At least not linux.git or linux-next
> Signed-off-by: Qiang.Zhang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 5543d57cb128..cf3f93abbd3e 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -4593,12 +4593,14 @@ static int slab_mem_going_offline_callback(void *arg)
> {
> struct kmem_cache *s;
>
> + cpus_read_lock();
> mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> list_for_each_entry(s, &slab_caches, list) {
> flush_all_cpus_locked(s);
> __kmem_cache_do_shrink(s);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> + cpus_read_unlock();
>
> return 0;
> }
>
Memory notifiers are getting called from online_pages()/offline_pages(),
where we call memory_notify(MEM_GOING_OFFLINE, &arg) under
mem_hotplug_begin().
mem_hotplug_begin() does a cpus_read_lock().
How does this even work or against which branch is this?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists