Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:18:07 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm/slab: hold a slab_mutex when calling
 __kmem_cache_shrink()
Message-ID: <20160401021806.GA13179@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
References: <1459142821-20303-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1459142821-20303-2-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <56FD019A.10906@kyup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56FD019A.10906@kyup.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1386
Lines: 30

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/28/2016 08:26 AM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> > 
> > Major kmem_cache metadata in slab subsystem is synchronized with
> > the slab_mutex. In SLAB, if some of them is changed, node's shared
> > array cache would be freed and re-populated. If __kmem_cache_shrink()
> > is called at the same time, it will call drain_array() with n->shared
> > without holding node lock so problem can happen.
> > 
> > We can fix this small theoretical race condition by holding node lock
> > in drain_array(), but, holding a slab_mutex in kmem_cache_shrink()
> > looks more appropriate solution because stable state would make things
> > less error-prone and this is not performance critical path.
> > 
> > In addtion, annotate on SLAB functions.
> 
> Just a nit but would it not be better instead of doing comment-style
> annotation to use lockdep_assert_held/_once. In both cases for someone
> to understand what locks have to be held will go and read the source. In
> my mind it's easier to miss a comment line, rather than the
> lockdep_assert. Furthermore in case lockdep is enabled a locking
> violation would spew useful info to dmesg.

Good idea. I'm not sure if lockdep_assert is best fit but I will add
something to check it rather than just adding the comment.

Thanks.