[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221020163158.GP5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:31:58 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
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>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 5/8] slab: Explain why SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU reference
before locking
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:10:49AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/20/22 00:46, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > It is not obvious to the casual user why it is absolutely necessary to
> > acquire a reference to a SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU structure before acquiring
> > a lock in that structure. Therefore, add a comment explaining this point.
>
> s/SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU/SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU/ in subject, commit log and the
> added comment? :)
Boy, I was certainly living in the past when I did this patch, wasn't I?
Thank you, will fix on next rebase.
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> > Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> > Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
> > Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/slab.h | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> > index 90877fcde70bd..446303e385265 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> > @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@
> > * rcu_read_lock before reading the address, then rcu_read_unlock after
> > * taking the spinlock within the structure expected at that address.
> > *
> > + * Note that it is not possible to acquire a lock within a structure
> > + * allocated with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU without first acquiring a reference
> > + * as described above. The reason is that SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU pages are
> > + * not zeroed before being given to the slab, which means that any locks
> > + * must be initialized after each and every kmem_struct_alloc().
> > + *
>
> Wonder if slab caches with a constructor should be OK here as AFAIK it
> should mean the object has to be in the initialized state both when
> allocated and freed?
It does look that way, thank you!
And __i915_request_ctor(), sighand_ctor(), and anon_vma_ctor() actually
do this, initializing a lock in the process.
The ctor function could just initialize the locks, and all would be well.
In addition, this makes sequence-lock-like approaches a bit easier, as in
"just use a sequence lock".
I will update with attribution.
Thanx, Paul
> > * Note that SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU was originally named SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
> > */
> > /* Defer freeing slabs to RCU */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists