On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 03:57:58PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com>
>
> Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
> remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
> called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
> rule, leading to a warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
> __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
> Hardware name:
> 0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600
> 0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000
> ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff816d9583>] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
> [<ffffffff8107c107>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8107c145>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [<ffffffff811c7fe2>] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
> [<ffffffff811908d3>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
> [<ffffffffa013a123>] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
> [<ffffffffa0192b54>] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
> [<ffffffff811036fa>] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
> [<ffffffff816dfcd8>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
> [<ffffffff810d2125>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
> [<ffffffff81359efe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [<ffffffff816e8539>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache
> destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from
> the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep
> lockdep happy.
Please never add needless locking just to please lockdep.
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com>
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3195,12 +3195,13 @@ static void list_slab_objects(struct kmem_cache *s,
> struct page *page,
> /*
> * Attempt to free all partial slabs on a node.
> * This is called from kmem_cache_close(). We must be the last thread
> - * using the cache and therefore we do not need to lock anymore.
> + * using the cache, but we still have to lock for lockdep's sake.
> */
> static void free_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> {
> struct page *page, *h;
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, &n->partial, lru) {
> if (!page->inuse) {
> __remove_partial(n, page);
This already uses __remove_partial(), which does not have the lockdep
assertion. You even acked the patch that made this change, why add
the spinlock now?
commit 1e4dd9461fabfbc780cdfaf103cec790f3a53325
Author: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Date: Mon Feb 10 14:25:46 2014 -0800
slub: do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
Vladimir reported the following issue:
Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
rule, leading to a warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
__kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
Hardware name:
0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600
0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000
ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0
Call Trace:
__kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also requires
disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the system.
Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if the
list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock
validation either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com>
Suggested-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com>
Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
