On 10/21/22 17:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 03:50:17PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 10/21/22 15:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 09:44:23AM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> >> >> >> > It is not obvious to the casual user why it is absolutely necessary to >> >> > acquire a reference to a SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU structure before acquiring >> >> > a lock in that structure. Therefore, add a comment explaining this point. >> >> >> >> Sorry but this is not correct and difficult to comprehend. >> >> >> >> 1. You do not need a reference to a slab object after it was allocated. >> >> Objects must be properly protected by rcu_locks. >> >> >> >> 2. Locks are initialized once on slab allocation via a constructor (*not* on object allocation via kmem_cache_alloc) >> >> >> >> 3. Modifying locks at allocation/free is not possible since references to >> >> these objects may still persist after free and before alloc. >> >> >> >> 4. The old term SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is used here. >> > >> > Thank you for looking this over, but Vlastimil beat you to it. How does >> > the update below look? >> >> LGTM. > > May I please have your ack? > > Thanx, Paul > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > commit ff4c536e6b44e2e185e38c3653851f92e07139da >> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Mon Sep 26 08:57:56 2022 -0700 >> > >> > slab: Explain why SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU reference before locking >> > >> > It is not obvious to the casual user why it is absolutely necessary to >> > acquire a reference to a SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU structure before acquiring >> > a lock in that structure. Therefore, add a comment explaining this point. >> > >> > [ paulmck: Apply Vlastimil Babka feedback. ] >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> It was there :) >> > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h >> > index 90877fcde70bd..487418c7ea8cd 100644 >> > --- a/include/linux/slab.h >> > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h >> > @@ -76,6 +76,17 @@ >> > * rcu_read_lock before reading the address, then rcu_read_unlock after >> > * taking the spinlock within the structure expected at that address. >> > * >> > + * Note that it is not possible to acquire a lock within a structure >> > + * allocated with SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU without first acquiring a reference >> > + * as described above. The reason is that SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU pages >> > + * are not zeroed before being given to the slab, which means that any >> > + * locks must be initialized after each and every kmem_struct_alloc(). >> > + * Alternatively, make the ctor passed to kmem_cache_create() initialize >> > + * the locks at page-allocation time, as is done in __i915_request_ctor(), >> > + * sighand_ctor(), and anon_vma_ctor(). Such a ctor permits readers >> > + * to safely acquire those ctor-initialized locks under rcu_read_lock() >> > + * protection. >> > + * >> > * Note that SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU was originally named SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. >> > */ >> > /* Defer freeing slabs to RCU */ >>
