[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9794df4f-3ffe-4e99-0810-a1346b139ce8@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 11:35:30 +0800
From: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
penberg@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and
slab_free
Hi, Christoph, David, Muchun and Hyeonggon
Thanks for your time.
Recently, I am also find other ways to solve this. That case was
provided by Muchun is useful (Thanks Muchun!). Indeed, it seems that use
n->list_lock here is unwise. Actually, I'm not sure if you recognize the
existence of such race? If all agrees this race, then the next question
may be: do we want to solve this problem? or as David said, it would be
better to deprecate validate attribute directly. I have no idea about
it, hope to rely on your experience.
In fact, I mainly want to collect your views on whether or how to fix
this bug here. Thanks!
Thanks again for your time:).
-wrw
On 6/2/22 11:14 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>>> Unconditionally taking n->list_lock will degrade performance.
>>
>> This is a good point, it would be useful to gather some benchmarks for
>> workloads that are known to thrash some caches and would hit this path
>> such as netperf TCP_RR.
>
> Its obvious that adding new spinlocks to some of the hottest functions in
> the kernel will degrade performance. This goes against the basic design of
> these functions to be as efficient as possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists