On 3/15/21 6:32 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 3/15/21 6:16 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
>> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >
>> >> Commit ca0cab65ea2b ("mm, slub: introduce static key for slub_debug()")
>> >> introduced a static key to optimize the case where no debugging is
>> >> enabled for
>> >> any cache. The static key is enabled when slub_debug boot parameter is
>> >> passed,
>> >> or CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON enabled.
>> >>
>> >> However, some caches might be created with one or more debugging flags
>> >> explicitly passed to kmem_cache_create(), and the commit missed this.
>> >> Thus the
>> >> debugging functionality would not be actually performed for these caches
>> >> unless
>> >> the static key gets enabled by boot param or config.
>> >>
>> >> This patch fixes it by checking for debugging flags passed to
>> >> kmem_cache_create() and enabling the static key accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> Note such explicit debugging flags should not be used outside of
>> >> debugging and
>> >> testing as they will now enable the static key globally.
>> >> btrfs_init_cachep()
>> >> creates a cache with SLAB_RED_ZONE but that's a mistake that's being
>> >> corrected
>> >> [1]. rcu_torture_stats() creates a cache with SLAB_STORE_USER, but that
>> >> is a
>> >> testing module so it's OK and will start working as intended after this
>> >> patch.
>> >>
>> >> Also note that in case of backports to kernels before v5.12 that don't
>> >> have
>> >> 59450bbc12be ("mm, slab, slub: stop taking cpu hotplug lock"),
>> >> static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() should be used.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Since this affects 5.9+, is the plan to propose backports to stable with
>> > static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() once this is merged? (I notice the
>> > absence of the stable tag here, which I believe is intended.)
>>
>> I was thinking about it, and since the rcutorture user is only in -next
>> (AFAICS)
>> and btrfs user was unintended, it didn't seem to meet stable criteria to me.
>> But
>> I won't mind if it's backported.
>
> I had better ask... Should rcutorture be doing something different?
>
> Thanx, Paul
No, I think it's fine if a testing module such as rcutorture flips the static
key for the rest of the kernel's uptime. I only CC'd you as FYI in case you were
wondering why you can't see any alloc/free stacks in its output :)
