On 6/15/22 11:11, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:03:59PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index 7dd64139a7c7..abba063ae5ee 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1417,12 +1417,16 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
struct zone *zone;
int __maybe_unused i;
int new_leaks = 0;
+ int loop1_cnt = 0;
jiffies_last_scan = jiffies;
/* prepare the kmemleak_object's */
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
+ bool obj_pinned = false;
+
+ loop1_cnt++;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&object->lock);
#ifdef DEBUG
/*
@@ -1437,10 +1441,32 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
#endif
/* reset the reference count (whiten the object) */
object->count = 0;
- if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object))
+ if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object)) {
list_add_tail(&object->gray_list, &gray_list);
+ obj_pinned = true;
+ }
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&object->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Do a cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup every 64k objects.
+ * Make sure a reference has been taken so that the object
+ * won't go away without RCU read lock.
+ */
+ if (!(loop1_cnt & 0xffff)) {
+ if (!obj_pinned && !get_object(object)) {
+ /* Try the next object instead */
+ loop1_cnt--;
+ continue;
+ }
With this trick we could probably get rid of rcu_read_lock() and take
the kmemleak_lock instead. But that's for another patch.
rcu_read_lock() is cheap unless we use a preempt kernel.
+
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ cond_resched();
+ rcu_read_lock();
cond_resched_rcu() to save a couple of lines?
I am not aware of such helper function. Yes, I should have used that
instead in case I need to update this patch again. Thanks!
+
+ if (!obj_pinned)
+ put_object(object);
+ }
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Longman
