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;
Message-ID: <af778779-77b8-15db-d5dc-36c4992483b3@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:22:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: Prevent soft lockup in kmemleak_scan()'s
 object iteration loops
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
References: <20221020175619.366317-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20221020175823.d7aa5cfeefd8673429f42081@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221020175823.d7aa5cfeefd8673429f42081@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 10/20/22 20:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:56:19 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Commit 6edda04ccc7c ("mm/kmemleak: prevent soft lockup in first object
>> iteration loop of kmemleak_scan()") adds cond_resched() in the first
>> object iteration loop of kmemleak_scan(). However, it turns that the
>> 2nd objection iteration loop can still cause soft lockup to happen in
>> some cases. So add a cond_resched() call in the 2nd and 3rd loops as
>> well to prevent that and for completeness.
>>
> Seems reasonable, although not an object of beauty.
>
> We didn't include a Fixes: or cc:stable in 6edda04ccc7c, even though it
> addresses softlockups.  I think I'll add a cc:stable to this, with a
> Fixes:6edda04ccc7c.  So any kenrel which included 6edda04ccc7c will
> hopefully add this as well.

That sounds good to me. I consider commit 6edda04ccc7c incomplete and 
this patch complete it. Technically it can be considered a fix.

Thanks,
Longman