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;
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:32:23 -0700
From:   Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     djwong@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, dvyukov@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use kmem_cache_free() for kmem_cache objects
Message-ID: <YVZXF3mbaW+Pe+Ji@nuc10>
References: <20210929212347.1139666-1-rkovhaev@gmail.com>
 <20210930044202.GP2361455@dread.disaster.area>
 <17f537b3-e2eb-5d0a-1465-20f3d3c960e2@suse.cz>
 <YVYGcLbu/aDKXkag@nuc10>
 <a9b3cd91-8ee6-a654-b2a8-00c3efb69559@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a9b3cd91-8ee6-a654-b2a8-00c3efb69559@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:10:10PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/30/21 8:48 PM, Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:13:40AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it's fair if something like XFS (not meant for tiny systems AFAIK?)
> >> excludes SLOB (meant for tiny systems). Clearly nobody tried to use these
> >> two together last 5 years anyway.
> > 
> > +1 for adding Kconfig option, it seems like some things are not meant to
> > be together.
> 
> But if we patch SLOB, we won't need it.

OK, so we consider XFS on SLOB a supported configuration that might be
used and should be tested.
I'll look into maybe adding a config with CONFIG_SLOB and CONFIG_XFS_FS
to syzbot.

It seems that we need to patch SLOB anyway, because any other code can
hit the very same issue.

> >> Maybe we could also just add the 4 bytes to all SLOB objects, declare
> >> kfree() is always fine and be done with it. Yes, it will make SLOB footprint
> >> somewhat less tiny, but even whan we added kmalloc power of two alignment
> >> guarantees, the impact on SLOB was negligible.
> > 
> > I'll send a patch to add a 4-byte header for kmem_cache_alloc()
> > allocations.
> 
> Thanks. Please report in the changelog slab usage from /proc/meminfo
> before and after patch (at least a snapshot after a full boot).

OK.