[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62a65418-2393-40ec-b462-151605a5efcf@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 14:28:15 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: next-20241001: WARNING: at mm/list_lru.c:77 list_lru_del
(mm/list_lru.c:212 mm/list_lru.c:200)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:25:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:24:20PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Let's add Kairui Song to the CC list.
> >
> > One simple thing is that we should add a READ_ONCE() to the comparison. Naresh,
> > could you test the attached diff? I don't know that it will fix it but it's
> > worth checking the easy stuff first.
> >
>
> Actually that's not right. Let me write a different patch.
Try this one.
regards,
dan carpenter
diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index 79c2d21504a2..2c429578ed31 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ lock_list_lru_of_memcg(struct list_lru *lru, int nid, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
bool irq, bool skip_empty)
{
struct list_lru_one *l;
+ long nr_items;
rcu_read_lock();
again:
l = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(lru, nid, memcg_kmem_id(memcg));
@@ -73,8 +74,9 @@ lock_list_lru_of_memcg(struct list_lru *lru, int nid, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
spin_lock_irq(&l->lock);
else
spin_lock(&l->lock);
- if (likely(READ_ONCE(l->nr_items) != LONG_MIN)) {
- WARN_ON(l->nr_items < 0);
+ nr_items = READ_ONCE(l->nr_items);
+ if (likely(nr_items != LONG_MIN)) {
+ WARN_ON(nr_items < 0);
rcu_read_unlock();
return l;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists