[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251024152913.1115220-1-clm@meta.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:29:09 -0700
From: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett"
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
"Sebastian
Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/19] slab: introduce percpu sheaves bootstrap
On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:52:28 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> Until now, kmem_cache->cpu_sheaves was !NULL only for caches with
> sheaves enabled. Since we want to enable them for almost all caches,
> it's suboptimal to test the pointer in the fast paths, so instead
> allocate it for all caches in do_kmem_cache_create(). Instead of testing
> the cpu_sheaves pointer to recognize caches (yet) without sheaves, test
> kmem_cache->sheaf_capacity for being 0, where needed.
>
> However, for the fast paths sake we also assume that the main sheaf
> always exists (pcs->main is !NULL), and during bootstrap we cannot
> allocate sheaves yet.
>
> Solve this by introducing a single static bootstrap_sheaf that's
> assigned as pcs->main during bootstrap. It has a size of 0, so during
> allocations, the fast path will find it's empty. Since the size of 0
> matches sheaf_capacity of 0, the freeing fast paths will find it's
> "full". In the slow path handlers, we check sheaf_capacity to recognize
> that the cache doesn't (yet) have real sheaves, and fall back. Thus
> sharing the single bootstrap sheaf like this for multiple caches and
> cpus is safe.
>
Hi Vlastimil,
We're trying out the AI patch review automation on the BPF commits and it had
some questions about a few of these. Since the goal is to actually test the
automation, I'm putting them in unedited, but I did try and make sure they
were valid before sending.
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index a6e58d3708f4..ecb10ed5acfe 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -7733,8 +7782,7 @@ static void free_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s)
> void __kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> cache_random_seq_destroy(s);
> - if (s->cpu_sheaves)
> - pcs_destroy(s);
> + pcs_destroy(s);
Can pcs_destroy() handle a NULL cpu_sheaves pointer? Looking at the
error path in do_kmem_cache_create():
s->cpu_sheaves = alloc_percpu(struct slub_percpu_sheaves);
if (!s->cpu_sheaves) {
err = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}
...
out:
if (err)
__kmem_cache_release(s);
If alloc_percpu() fails, __kmem_cache_release() now calls pcs_destroy()
unconditionally. In pcs_destroy(), the first operation is:
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
pcs = per_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_sheaves, cpu);
Does per_cpu_ptr() dereference s->cpu_sheaves when it's NULL?
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> if (s->cpu_slab)
> lockdep_unregister_key(&s->lock_key);
[ ... ]
> @@ -8608,12 +8656,10 @@ int do_kmem_cache_create(struct kmem_cache *s, const char *name,
>
> set_cpu_partial(s);
>
> - if (s->sheaf_capacity) {
> - s->cpu_sheaves = alloc_percpu(struct slub_percpu_sheaves);
> - if (!s->cpu_sheaves) {
> - err = -ENOMEM;
> - goto out;
> - }
> + s->cpu_sheaves = alloc_percpu(struct slub_percpu_sheaves);
> + if (!s->cpu_sheaves) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> }
This error path triggers the call chain: do_kmem_cache_create() error
path -> __kmem_cache_release() -> pcs_destroy() with NULL cpu_sheaves.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists