lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: avoid slub allocation while holding list_lock
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 12:10:16AM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> If we are already under list_lock, don't call kmalloc(). Otherwise we
> will run into deadlock because kmalloc() also tries to grab the same
> lock.
>
> Instead, allocate pages directly. Given currently page->objects has
> 15 bits, we only need 1 page. We may waste some memory but we only do
> so when slub debug is on.
>
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> --------------------------------------------
> mount-encrypted/4921 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x104/0x437
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x81/0x3cb
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>

Looks sane to me:

Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-09 18:01    [W:0.082 / U:1.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site