| Message ID | 867f6da4-6d38-6435-3fbb-a2a3744029f1@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm, slub: place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free() | expand |
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> wrote: > > After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has > been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is > inaccurate. > > For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) free xxxxxx > (3) alloc xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > However, the following timing sequence may occur: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) alloc xxxxxx > (3) free xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). Could you tell me what problem you have encountered here? Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> > --- > mm/slub.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > index 432145d7b4ec..427e62034c3f 100644 > --- a/mm/slub.c > +++ b/mm/slub.c > @@ -3526,8 +3526,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) > s = cache_from_obj(s, x); > if (!s) > return; > - slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); > trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s->name); > + slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free); > > -- > 2.27.0
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:23:12PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has > > been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is > > inaccurate. > > > > For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > > (2) free xxxxxx > > (3) alloc xxxxxx > > (4) free xxxxxx > > > > However, the following timing sequence may occur: > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > > (2) alloc xxxxxx > > (3) free xxxxxx > > (4) free xxxxxx > > > > So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). > > Could you tell me what problem you have encountered > here? It's confusing to see the memory allocated before it's freed. If you're unaware of this problem, you might think it was being used after free because (1) happened a long time ago, so you see (2) immediately followed by (3) and then see the memory being used. The patch makes sense to me.
On 10/30/21 03:11, Yunfeng Ye wrote: > After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has > been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is > inaccurate. > > For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) free xxxxxx > (3) alloc xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > However, the following timing sequence may occur: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) alloc xxxxxx > (3) free xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). Hi Yunfeng, Like Muchun, I had some difficulty with the above description, but now I think I get it. :) In order to make it easier for others, how about this wording and subject line, instead: mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free() After the memory is freed, it can be immediately allocated by other CPUs, before the "free" trace report has been emitted. This causes inaccurate traces. For example, if the following sequence of events occurs: CPU 0 CPU 1 (1) alloc xxxxxx (2) free xxxxxx (3) alloc xxxxxx (4) free xxxxxx ...then they will be inaccurately reported via tracing, so that they appear to have happened in this order. This makes it look like CPU 1 somehow managed to allocate mmemory that CPU 0 still had allocated for itself: CPU 0 CPU 1 (1) alloc xxxxxx (2) alloc xxxxxx (3) free xxxxxx (4) free xxxxxx In order to avoid this, emit the "free xxxxxx" tracing report just before the actual call to free the memory, instead of just after it. > > Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> > --- > mm/slub.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > index 432145d7b4ec..427e62034c3f 100644 > --- a/mm/slub.c > +++ b/mm/slub.c > @@ -3526,8 +3526,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) > s = cache_from_obj(s, x); > if (!s) > return; > - slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); > trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s->name); > + slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free); > ...the diffs seem correct, too, but I'm not exactly a slub reviewer, so take that for what it's worth. thanks,
On 11/2/21 08:03, John Hubbard wrote: > On 10/30/21 03:11, Yunfeng Ye wrote: >> After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has >> been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is >> inaccurate. >> >> For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: >> >> CPU 0 CPU 1 >> >> (1) alloc xxxxxx >> (2) free xxxxxx >> (3) alloc xxxxxx >> (4) free xxxxxx >> >> However, the following timing sequence may occur: >> >> CPU 0 CPU 1 >> >> (1) alloc xxxxxx >> (2) alloc xxxxxx >> (3) free xxxxxx >> (4) free xxxxxx >> >> So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). > > Hi Yunfeng, > > Like Muchun, I had some difficulty with the above description, but > now I think I get it. :) > > In order to make it easier for others, how about this wording and subject > line, instead: > > > mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing memory in > kmem_cache_free() > > After the memory is freed, it can be immediately allocated by other > CPUs, before the "free" trace report has been emitted. This causes > inaccurate traces. > > For example, if the following sequence of events occurs: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) free xxxxxx > (3) alloc xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > ...then they will be inaccurately reported via tracing, so that they > appear to have happened in this order. This makes it look like CPU 1 > somehow managed to allocate mmemory that CPU 0 still had allocated for > itself: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) alloc xxxxxx > (3) free xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > In order to avoid this, emit the "free xxxxxx" tracing report just > before the actual call to free the memory, instead of just after it. Agree, this wording is better. IIRC the same problem was fixed for mmap_lock trace ordering just recently. >> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
On 2021/11/2 15:03, John Hubbard wrote: > On 10/30/21 03:11, Yunfeng Ye wrote: >> After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has >> been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is >> inaccurate. >> >> For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: >> >> CPU 0 CPU 1 >> >> (1) alloc xxxxxx >> (2) free xxxxxx >> (3) alloc xxxxxx >> (4) free xxxxxx >> >> However, the following timing sequence may occur: >> >> CPU 0 CPU 1 >> >> (1) alloc xxxxxx >> (2) alloc xxxxxx >> (3) free xxxxxx >> (4) free xxxxxx >> >> So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). > > Hi Yunfeng, > > Like Muchun, I had some difficulty with the above description, but > now I think I get it. :) > > In order to make it easier for others, how about this wording and subject > line, instead: > Ok,I will modify the description in the next version patch. Thanks. > > mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free() > > After the memory is freed, it can be immediately allocated by other > CPUs, before the "free" trace report has been emitted. This causes > inaccurate traces. > > For example, if the following sequence of events occurs: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) free xxxxxx > (3) alloc xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > ...then they will be inaccurately reported via tracing, so that they > appear to have happened in this order. This makes it look like CPU 1 > somehow managed to allocate mmemory that CPU 0 still had allocated for > itself: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > (1) alloc xxxxxx > (2) alloc xxxxxx > (3) free xxxxxx > (4) free xxxxxx > > In order to avoid this, emit the "free xxxxxx" tracing report just > before the actual call to free the memory, instead of just after it. > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> >> --- >> mm/slub.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c >> index 432145d7b4ec..427e62034c3f 100644 >> --- a/mm/slub.c >> +++ b/mm/slub.c >> @@ -3526,8 +3526,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) >> s = cache_from_obj(s, x); >> if (!s) >> return; >> - slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); >> trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s->name); >> + slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free); >> > > ...the diffs seem correct, too, but I'm not exactly a slub reviewer, so > take that for what it's worth. > > > thanks,
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c index 432145d7b4ec..427e62034c3f 100644 --- a/mm/slub.c +++ b/mm/slub.c @@ -3526,8 +3526,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) s = cache_from_obj(s, x); if (!s) return; - slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s->name); + slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
After the memory is freed, it may be allocated by other CPUs and has been recorded by trace. So the timing sequence of the memory tracing is inaccurate. For example, we expect the following timing sequeuce: CPU 0 CPU 1 (1) alloc xxxxxx (2) free xxxxxx (3) alloc xxxxxx (4) free xxxxxx However, the following timing sequence may occur: CPU 0 CPU 1 (1) alloc xxxxxx (2) alloc xxxxxx (3) free xxxxxx (4) free xxxxxx So place the trace before freeing memory in kmem_cache_free(). Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> --- mm/slub.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)