Re: [PATCH] mm/damon/tests/vaddr-kunit: don't use mas_lock for MM_MT_FLAGS-initialized maple tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [240903 21:54]:
> On 9/3/24 18:18, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Tue,  3 Sep 2024 17:58:15 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:48:53 -0400 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > * SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> [240903 20:45]:
> > > > > damon_test_three_regions_in_vmas() initializes a maple tree with
> > > > > MM_MT_FLAGS.  The flags contains MT_FLAGS_LOCK_EXTERN, which means
> > > > > mt_lock of the maple tree will not be used.  And therefore the maple
> > > > > tree initialization code skips initialization of the mt_lock.  However,
> > > > > __link_vmas(), which adds vmas for test to the maple tree, uses the
> > > > > mt_lock.  In other words, the uninitialized spinlock is used.  The
> > > > > problem becomes celar when spinlock debugging is turned on, since it
> > > > > reports spinlock bad magic bug.  Fix the issue by not using the mt_lock
> > > > > as promised.
> > > > 
> > > > You can't do this, lockdep will tell you this is wrong.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, but lockdep was silence on my setup?
> > > 
> > > > We need a lock and to use the lock for writes.
> > > 
> > > This code is executed by a single-thread test code.  Do we still need the lock?
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'd suggest using different flags so the spinlock is used.
> > > 
> > > The reporter mentioned simply dropping MT_FLAGS_LOCK_EXTERN from the flags
> > > causes suspicious RCU usage message.  May I ask if you have a suggestion of
> > > better flags?
> > 
> > I was actually thinking replacing the mt_init_flags() with mt_init(), which
> > same to mt_init_flags() with zero flag, like below.
> > 
> > ```
> > --- a/mm/damon/tests/vaddr-kunit.h
> > +++ b/mm/damon/tests/vaddr-kunit.h
> > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void damon_test_three_regions_in_vmas(struct kunit *test)
> >                  (struct vm_area_struct) {.vm_start = 307, .vm_end = 330},
> >          };
> > 
> > -       mt_init_flags(&mm.mm_mt, MM_MT_FLAGS);
> > +       mt_init(&mm.mm_mt);
> >          if (__link_vmas(&mm.mm_mt, vmas, ARRAY_SIZE(vmas)))
> >                  kunit_skip(test, "Failed to create VMA tree");
> > ```
> > 
> > And just confirmed it also convinces the reproducer.  But because I'm obviously
> > not familiar with maple tree, would like to hear some comments from Liam or
> > others first.

Again, I'd use the flags "MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE | MT_FLAGS_USE_RCU"
because that gets you the gap tracking that may be necessary for tests
in the future - it's closer to the MM_MT_FLAGS, so maybe some mm
function you use depends on that.

> > 
> Same here. That is why I gave up after trying MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE and
> "MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE | MT_FLAGS_USE_RCU". After all, I really don't know what
> I am doing and was just playing around ... and there isn't really a good
> explanation why initializing the maple tree with MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE (but not
> MT_FLAGS_USE_RCU) would trigger rcu warnings.

Thanks, I'll add that to my list of things to do.

Regards,
Liam




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux