Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-25155-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:24:17 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, andrey.konovalov@linux.dev,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
	Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/22] lib/stackdepot: use read/write lock
Message-ID: <ZaHmQU5DouedI9kS@tassilo>
References: <cover.1700502145.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <9f81ffcc4bb422ebb6326a65a770bf1918634cbb.1700502145.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <ZZUlgs69iTTlG8Lh@localhost.localdomain>
 <87sf34lrn3.fsf@linux.intel.com>
 <CANpmjNNdWwGsD3JRcEqpq_ywwDFoxsBjz6n=6vL5YksNsPyqHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZZ_gssjTCyoWjjhP@tassilo>
 <ZaA8oQG-stLAVTbM@elver.google.com>
 <CA+fCnZeS=OrqSK4QVUVdS6PwzGrpg8CBj8i2Uq=VMgMcNg1FYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNOoidtyeQ76274SWtTYR4zZPdr1DnxhLaagHGXcKwPOhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZaG56XTDwPfkqkJb@elver.google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZaG56XTDwPfkqkJb@elver.google.com>

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:15:05PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> +		/*
> +		 * Stack traces of size 0 are never saved, and we can simply use
> +		 * the size field as an indicator if this is a new unused stack
> +		 * record in the freelist.
> +		 */
> +		stack->size = 0;

I would use WRITE_ONCE here too, at least for TSan.

> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We maintain the invariant that the elements in front are least
> +	 * recently used, and are therefore more likely to be associated with an
> +	 * RCU grace period in the past. Consequently it is sufficient to only
> +	 * check the first entry.
> +	 */
> +	stack = list_first_entry(&free_stacks, struct stack_record, free_list);
> +	if (stack->size && !poll_state_synchronize_rcu(stack->rcu_state))

READ_ONCE (also for TSan, and might be safer long term in case the
compiler considers some fancy code transformation)

> +		return NULL;
>  
> +		stack = depot_pop_free();
> +		if (WARN_ON(!stack))

Won't you get nesting problems here if this triggers due to the print?
I assume the nmi safe printk won't consider it like an NMI.

>  	counters[DEPOT_COUNTER_FREELIST_SIZE]++;
>  	counters[DEPOT_COUNTER_FREES]++;
>  	counters[DEPOT_COUNTER_INUSE]--;
> +
> +	printk_deferred_exit();

Ah this handles the WARN_ON? Should be ok then.

-Andi