On 10/14/21 12:16, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:33:03AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 10/14/21 10:54, kernel test robot wrote:
>>
>> In my local testing of the patch, when stackdepot was initialized through
>> page owner init, it was using kvmalloc() so slab_is_available() was true.
>> Looks like the exact order of slab vs page_owner alloc is non-deterministic,
>> could be arch-dependent or just random ordering of init calls. A wrong order
>> will exploit the apparent fact that slab_is_available() is not a good
>> indicator of using memblock vs page allocator, and we would need a better one.
>> Thoughts?
>
> The order of slab vs page_owner is deterministic, but it is different for
> FLATMEM and SPARSEMEM. And page_ext_init_flatmem_late() that initializes
> page_ext for FLATMEM is called exactly between buddy and slab setup:
Oh, so it was due to FLATMEM, thanks for figuring that out!
> static void __init mm_init(void)
> {
> ...
>
> mem_init();
> mem_init_print_info();
> /* page_owner must be initialized after buddy is ready */
> page_ext_init_flatmem_late();
> kmem_cache_init();
>
> ...
> }
>
> I've stared for a while at page_ext init and it seems that the
> page_ext_init_flatmem_late() can be simply dropped because there is anyway
> a call to invoke_init_callbacks() in page_ext_init() that is called much
> later in the boot process.
Yeah, but page_ext_init() only does something for SPARSEMEM, and is empty on
FLATMEM. Otherwise it would be duplicating all the work. So I'll just move
page_ext_init_flatmem_late() below kmem_cache_init() in mm_init(). Thanks
again!
