linux-kernel - [PATCH] mm/slub: fix comments about fastpath limitation on PREEMPT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220825015722.1697209-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 10:57:22 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     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>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] mm/slub: fix comments about fastpath limitation on PREEMPT_RT

With PREEMPT_RT disabling interrupt is unnecessary as there is
no user of slab in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT.

The limitation of lockless fastpath on PREEMPT_RT comes from the fact
that local_lock does not disable preemption on PREEMPT_RT.

Fix comments accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
---
 mm/slub.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 30c2ee9e8a29..aa42ac6013b8 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
  *   except the stat counters. This is a percpu structure manipulated only by
  *   the local cpu, so the lock protects against being preempted or interrupted
  *   by an irq. Fast path operations rely on lockless operations instead.
- *   On PREEMPT_RT, the local lock does not actually disable irqs (and thus
+ *   On PREEMPT_RT, the local lock does not actually disable preemption (and thus
  *   prevent the lockless operations), so fastpath operations also need to take
  *   the lock and are no longer lockless.
  *
@@ -3185,10 +3185,12 @@ static __always_inline void *slab_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_l
 	slab = c->slab;
 	/*
 	 * We cannot use the lockless fastpath on PREEMPT_RT because if a
-	 * slowpath has taken the local_lock_irqsave(), it is not protected
-	 * against a fast path operation in an irq handler. So we need to take
-	 * the slow path which uses local_lock. It is still relatively fast if
-	 * there is a suitable cpu freelist.
+	 * slowpath has taken the local_lock which does not disable preemption
+	 * on PREEMPT_RT, it is not protected against a fast path operation in
+	 * another thread that does not take the local_lock.
+	 *
+	 * So we need to take the slow path which uses local_lock. It is still
+	 * relatively fast if there is a suitable cpu freelist.
 	 */
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) ||
 	    unlikely(!object || !slab || !node_match(slab, node))) {
@@ -3457,10 +3459,13 @@ static __always_inline void do_slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s,
 #else /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT */
 		/*
 		 * We cannot use the lockless fastpath on PREEMPT_RT because if
-		 * a slowpath has taken the local_lock_irqsave(), it is not
-		 * protected against a fast path operation in an irq handler. So
-		 * we need to take the local_lock. We shouldn't simply defer to
-		 * __slab_free() as that wouldn't use the cpu freelist at all.
+		 * a slowpath has taken the local_lock which does not disable
+		 * preemption on PREEMPT_RT, it is not protected against a
+		 * fast path operation in another thread that does not take
+		 * the local_lock.
+		 *
+		 * So we need to take the local_lock. We shouldn't simply defer
+		 * to __slab_free() as that wouldn't use the cpu freelist at all.
 		 */
 		void **freelist;
 
-- 
2.32.0