On 10/03/2012 08:35 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>>> index 9c21725..90c3053 100644
>>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>>> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
>>> s->refcount--;
>>> if (!s->refcount) {
>>> list_del(&s->list);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
>>>
>>> if (!__kmem_cache_shutdown(s)) {
>>
>> __kmem_cache_shutdown() calls __cache_shrink(). And __cache_shrink() has this
>> comment over it:
>> /* Called with slab_mutex held to protect against cpu hotplug */
>>
>> So, I guess the question is whether to modify your patch to hold the
>> slab_mutex
>> while calling this function, or to update the comment on top of this function
>> saying that we are OK to call this function (even without slab_mutex) when we
>> are inside a get/put_online_cpus() section.
>>
>>> if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU)
>>> @@ -179,8 +180,9 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
>>> s->name);
>>> dump_stack();
>>
>> There is a list_add() before this dump_stack(). I assume we need to hold the
>> slab_mutex while calling it.
>
> Gah, of course it is, thanks for spotting this.
>
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz>
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy()
>
> Commit 1331e7a1bbe1 ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on
> __stop_machine()") introduced slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock
> dependency through kmem_cache_destroy() -> rcu_barrier() ->
> _rcu_barrier() -> get_online_cpus().
>
> Lockdep thinks that this might actually result in ABBA deadlock,
> and reports it as below:
>
[...]
> This patch therefore moves the unlock of slab_mutex so that rcu_barrier()
> is being called with it unlocked. It has two advantages:
>
> - it slightly reduces hold time of slab_mutex; as it's used to protect
> the cachep list, it's not necessary to hold it over kmem_cache_free()
> call any more
> - it silences the lockdep false positive warning, as it avoids lockdep ever
> learning about slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock dependency
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hmm.. We can't do much about readability I guess... :(
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> ---
> mm/slab_common.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 9c21725..069a24e6 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> list_del(&s->list);
>
> if (!__kmem_cache_shutdown(s)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU)
> rcu_barrier();
>
> @@ -175,12 +176,14 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
> } else {
> list_add(&s->list, &slab_caches);
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> printk(KERN_ERR "kmem_cache_destroy %s: Slab cache
> still has objects\n",
> s->name);
> dump_stack();
> }
> + } else {
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> }
> - mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> put_online_cpus();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_destroy);
>
--
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/
