Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <23b626c719b6b269fc30e29041b8db3b4f8b60f8.camel@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [rfc/patch] mm/slub: restore/expand unfreeze_partials() local
 exclusion scope
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jul 2021 04:25:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5be1a703-9a0a-4115-1d69-634e5e8ecefd@suse.cz>
References: <87tul5p2fa.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <8c0e0c486056b5185b58998f2cce62619ed3f05c.camel@gmx.de>
         <878s2fnv79.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <6c0e20dd84084036d5068e445746c3ed7e82ec4b.camel@gmx.de>
         <7431ceb9761c566cf2d1f6f263247acd8d38c4b5.camel@gmx.de>
         <f9935c4c-078c-4b52-5297-64ee22272664@suse.cz>
         <f16b78bd3bb8fecf734017d40274e4c3294554ab.camel@gmx.de>
         <240f104fc6757d8c38fa01342511eda931632d5a.camel@gmx.de>
         <69da2ecd-a797-e264-fbfa-13108dc7a573@suse.cz>
         <84a7bd02cf109c6a5a8c7cc2bfc2898cb98270aa.camel@gmx.de>
         <5be1a703-9a0a-4115-1d69-634e5e8ecefd@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2021-07-24 at 00:39 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 7/21/21 11:33 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 10:44 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > >
> > > So this doesn't look like our put_cpu_partial() preempted a
> > > __slab_alloc() on the same cpu, right?
> >
> > No, likely it was the one preempted by someone long gone, but we'll
> > never know without setting a trap.
> >
> > > BTW did my ugly patch work?
> >
> > Nope.=C2=A0 I guess you missed my reporting it to have been a -ENOBOOT=
, and
>
> Indeed, I misunderstood it as you talking about your patch.
>
> > that cutting it in half, ie snagging only __slab_free() does boot, and
> > seems to cure all of the RT fireworks.
>
> OK, so depending on drain=3D1 makes this apply only to put_cpu_partial()
> called from __slab_free and not get_partial_node(). One notable
> difference is that in __slab_free we don't have n->list_lock locked and
> in get_partial_node() we do. I guess in case your list_lock is made raw
> again by another patch, that explains a local_lock can't nest under it.
> If not, then I would expect this to work (I don't think they ever nest
> in the opposite order, also lockdep should tell us instead of
> -ENOBOOT?), but might be missing something...

RT used to convert list_lock to raw_spinlock_t, but no longer does.
Whatever is going on, box does not emit a single sign of life with the
full patch.

> I'd rather not nest those locks in any case. I just need to convince
> myself that the scenario the half-fix fixes is indeed the only one
> that's needed and we're not leaving there other races that are just
> harder to trigger...

Yup.  I can only state with confidence that the trouble I was able to
easily reproduce was fixed up by serializing __slab_free(). Hopefully
you'll find that's the only hole in need of plugging.

	-Mike