Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75292-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Zc3X8XlnrZmh2mgN@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHc2ee_V6SGAc_31O_ikjGGNivhdSG+2XNcc9vVmzO-9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zc4_i_ED6qjGDmhR@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHq3N0h6dGieHxD6Au+qs=iKAifFrHAMxTsHTcDrOwSQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>
 <320cd134-b767-4f29-869b-d219793ba8a1@suse.cz> <efxe67vo32epvmyzplmpd344nw2wf37azicpfhvkt3zz4aujm3@n27pl5j5zahj>
 <20240215180742.34470209@gandalf.local.home> <20240215181648.67170ed5@gandalf.local.home>
 <20240215182729.659f3f1c@gandalf.local.home> <mi5zw42r6c2yfg7fr2pfhfff6hudwizybwydosmdiwsml7vqna@a5iu6ksb2ltk>
 <CAJuCfpEARb8t8pc8WVZYB=yPk6G_kYGmJTMOdgiMHaYYKW3fUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e017b7bc-d747-46e6-a89d-4ce558ed79b0@suse.cz> <c5bd4224-8c97-4854-a0d6-253fcd8bd92b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <c5bd4224-8c97-4854-a0d6-253fcd8bd92b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:26:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFyrUizGbS+ZnMdp4-chg8q49xtZgFhejHoSi76Du1Ocg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, 
	dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, 
	corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, 
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, 
	arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, 
	david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, 
	nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, 
	rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, 
	yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, 
	hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, 
	ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, 
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, 
	vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 
	42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, 
	shakeelb@google.com, songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, 
	rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, 
	kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 5:22=E2=80=AFAM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2024/02/21 3:27, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > I'm sure more such scenarios exist, Cc: Tetsuo who I recall was an expe=
rt on
> > this topic.
>
> "[PATCH v3 10/35] lib: code tagging framework" says that codetag_lock_mod=
ule_list()
> calls down_read() (i.e. sleeping operation), and
> "[PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()" says =
that
> __show_mem() calls alloc_tags_show_mem_report() after kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)=
 (i.e.
> non-sleeping operation) but alloc_tags_show_mem_report() calls down_read(=
) via
> codetag_lock_module_list() !?
>
> If __show_mem() might be called from atomic context (e.g. kmalloc(GFP_ATO=
MIC)),
> this will be a sleep in atomic bug.
> If __show_mem() might be called while semaphore is held for write,
> this will be a read-lock after write-lock deadlock bug.
>
> Not the matter of whether to allocate buffer statically or dynamically.
> Please don't hold a lock when trying to report memory usage.

Thanks for catching this, Tetsuo! Yes, we take the read-lock here to
ensure that the list of modules is stable. I'm thinking I can replace
the down_read() with down_read_trylock() and if we fail (there is a
race with module load/unload) we will skip generating this report. The
probability of racing with module load/unload while in OOM state I
think is quite low, so skipping this report should not cause much
information loss.

>
>