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:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:06:29 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: amusing SLUB compaction bug when CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
Message-ID: <Y1ap9YAcZKFuIt/I@casper.infradead.org>
References: <ea96c78c-e1dc-1364-e91-51909f82388b@google.com>
 <YzPgTtFzpKEfwPbK@hyeyoo>
 <YzRQvoVsnJzsauwb@google.com>
 <35502bdd-1a78-dea1-6ac3-6ff1bcc073fa@suse.cz>
 <ff905c1e-5eb3-eaf8-46de-38f189c0b7a5@google.com>
 <de71b83a-c82c-4785-ef5a-3db4f17bbc8d@suse.cz>
 <bcecece-f7ce-221d-1674-da3d5ab3fef@google.com>
 <YzkmErHFyYW3awRn@hyeyoo>
 <YzsVM8eToHUeTP75@casper.infradead.org>
 <7dddca4c-bc36-2cf0-de1c-a770bef9e1b7@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7dddca4c-bc36-2cf0-de1c-a770bef9e1b7@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:35:04PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> I would like to have a working safe version in -next, even if we are able
> simplify it later thanks to frozen refcounts. I've made a formal patch of
> yours, but I'm still convinced the slab check needs to be more paranoid so
> it can't observe a false positive __folio_test_movable() while missing the
> folio_test_slab(), hence I added the barriers as in my previous attempt [1].
> Does that work for you and can I add your S-o-b?

Thanks for picking this back up.

> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1370,6 +1370,8 @@ static struct slab *kmem_getpages(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags,
>  
>  	account_slab(slab, cachep->gfporder, cachep, flags);
>  	__folio_set_slab(folio);
> +	/* Make the flag visible before any changes to folio->mapping */
> +	smp_wmb();

So what's the point of using __folio_set_slab() only to call smp_wmb()
afterwards?  If we call folio_set_slab() instead, don't all the other
barriers go away?  (This is a genuine question; I am bad at this kind
of reasoning).  Obviously it would still need a comment.