[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0217bfe-87da-8f2a-6a40-edd061baad26@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 11:41:26 +0800
From: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, <cl@...ux.com>,
<penberg@...nel.org>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <songmuchun@...edance.com>, <willy@...radead.org>,
<wuxu.wu@...wei.com>, Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing
memory in kmem_cache_free()
On 2021/11/3 2:37, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 11/2/21 04:43, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>> After the memory is freed, it can be immediately allocated by other
>> CPUs, before the "free" trace report has been emitted. This causes
>> inaccurate traces.
>>
>> For example, if the following sequence of events occurs:
>>
>> CPU 0 CPU 1
>>
>> (1) alloc xxxxxx
>> (2) free xxxxxx
>> (3) alloc xxxxxx
>> (4) free xxxxxx
>>
>> Then they will be inaccurately reported via tracing, so that they appear
>> to have happened in this order:
>>
>> CPU 0 CPU 1
>>
>> (1) alloc xxxxxx
>> (2) alloc xxxxxx
>> (3) free xxxxxx
>> (4) free xxxxxx
>>
>> This makes it look like CPU 1 somehow managed to allocate mmemory that
>
>
> I see I created a typo for you, sorry about that: s/mmemory/memory/
>
> But anyway, the wording looks good now. Please feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>
Ok, I will fix the typo in the v3 patch.
Thanks.
>
> thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists