[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YX6R7EUdxok8phma@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 12:54:04 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wuxu.wu@...wei.com,
Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, slub: place the trace before freeing memory in
kmem_cache_free()
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:23:12PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> > After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has
> > been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> >
> > (1) alloc xxxxxx
> > (2) free xxxxxx
> > (3) alloc xxxxxx
> > (4) free xxxxxx
> >
> > However, the following timing sequence may occur:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> >
> > (1) alloc xxxxxx
> > (2) alloc xxxxxx
> > (3) free xxxxxx
> > (4) free xxxxxx
> >
> > So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free().
>
> Could you tell me what problem you have encountered
> here?
It's confusing to see the memory allocated before it's freed. If you're
unaware of this problem, you might think it was being used after free
because (1) happened a long time ago, so you see (2) immediately followed
by (3) and then see the memory being used.
The patch makes sense to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists