Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:27:56 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/kmemleak: Prevent soft lockup in first object
 iteration loop of kmemleak_scan()
Message-ID: <YqjFHOMT+rDgz3EK@arm.com>
References: <20220612183301.981616-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20220612183301.981616-4-longman@redhat.com>
 <YqjCGWmM2cGG1OOF@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YqjCGWmM2cGG1OOF@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 02:33:01PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -1437,10 +1440,25 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
> >  #endif
> >  		/* reset the reference count (whiten the object) */
> >  		object->count = 0;
> > -		if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object))
> > +		if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object)) {
> >  			list_add_tail(&object->gray_list, &gray_list);
> > +			gray_list_cnt++;
> > +			object_pinned = true;
> > +		}
> >  
> >  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&object->lock);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * With object pinned by a positive reference count, it
> > +		 * won't go away and we can safely release the RCU read
> > +		 * lock and do a cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup every
> > +		 * 64k objects.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (object_pinned && !(gray_list_cnt & 0xffff)) {
> > +			rcu_read_unlock();
> > +			cond_resched();
> > +			rcu_read_lock();
> > +		}
> 
> I'm not sure this gains much. There should be very few gray objects
> initially (those passed to kmemleak_not_leak() for example). The
> majority should be white objects.
> 
> If we drop the fine-grained object->lock, we could instead take
> kmemleak_lock outside the loop with a cond_resched_lock(&kmemleak_lock)
> within the loop. I think we can get away with not having an
> rcu_read_lock() at all for list traversal with the big lock outside the
> loop.

Actually this doesn't work is the current object in the iteration is
freed. Does list_for_each_rcu_safe() help?

-- 
Catalin