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:   Sun, 31 Oct 2021 12:54:04 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, wuxu.wu@huawei.com,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, slub: place the trace before freeing memory in
 kmem_cache_free()
Message-ID: <YX6R7EUdxok8phma@casper.infradead.org>
References: <867f6da4-6d38-6435-3fbb-a2a3744029f1@huawei.com>
 <CAMZfGtU+wyjD6e0Xm7-toqqfA2tsu8nSUQJsZdC=piZzgq76fw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMZfGtU+wyjD6e0Xm7-toqqfA2tsu8nSUQJsZdC=piZzgq76fw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:23:12PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has
> > been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce:
> >
> >     CPU 0                 CPU 1
> >
> >   (1) alloc xxxxxx
> >   (2) free  xxxxxx
> >                          (3) alloc xxxxxx
> >                          (4) free  xxxxxx
> >
> > However, the following timing sequence may occur:
> >
> >     CPU 0                 CPU 1
> >
> >   (1) alloc xxxxxx
> >                          (2) alloc xxxxxx
> >   (3) free  xxxxxx
> >                          (4) free  xxxxxx
> >
> > So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free().
> 
> Could you tell me what problem you have encountered
> here?

It's confusing to see the memory allocated before it's freed.  If you're
unaware of this problem, you might think it was being used after free
because (1) happened a long time ago, so you see (2) immediately followed
by (3) and then see the memory being used.

The patch makes sense to me.