From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1759763AbYDBTyD@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759763AbYDBTyD (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:03 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758152AbYDBTxz
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:53:55 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]:5375 "EHLO
	rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756523AbYDBTxy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:53:54 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=Nk4i7d+Gzno8cMAsXay0N49MrzNKwB5TtW/x6ST9UyXgxQJSCbHe1fBluhP3KBptnfvRPDGOwG3fZVTwRmUD/T3qGLBzfjx97YyXBCBActvAG3afCZ6kutGFPXTgAY8EouK6+VjH3Z0mA0NoXVezOWYgzr2Oe9POw5MakdeOARA=
Message-ID: <84144f020804021253i7e08e83fve3f2707063fc64d1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:53:53 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context)
Cc: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
       "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080402182352.GF9333@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1207085788.29991.6.camel@lappy>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021020280.25738@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
	 <20080402072456.GI12774@kernel.dk> <20080402072846.GA16454@elte.hu>
	 <20080402105539.GA5610@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <84144f020804020401j4e5863dcofd16662baa54574@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080402160809.GA4123@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <19f34abd0804020915k210277bbmb6b9aa28f282bb42@mail.gmail.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021924280.6839@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
	 <20080402182352.GF9333@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: add507badcac1cd3
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Paul,

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:32:26PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > Well, maybe we can add two new states: RCU_FREED and RCU_VALIDATED? The
> > object is flagged with the first one as soon as an object is handed over
> > to kmem_cache_free() and the latter needs to hook to the validation phase
> > of RCU (how is that done btw?). Then kmemcheck could even give a better
> > error message: "RCU-freed object used without validation."
> >
> > And with delayed free for kmemcheck we discussed before, we'd hold on to
> > the objects long enough to actually see these error conditions.

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  Well, one approach would be to add an rcu_head to the kmem_cache
>  structure, along with a flag stating that the rcu_head is in use.  I hope
>  that there is a better approach, as this introduces a lock roundtrip
>  into kmemcheck_slab_free().  Is there a better place to put the rcu_head?
>  Perhaps into the per-CPU allocator?  But then we have to track which
>  CPU has which mark pending, and there are only so many bits in a byte,
>  as the SGI guys would be quick to point out

I suppose you haven't actually run kmemcheck on your machine? We're
taking a page fault for _every_ memory access so a lock round-trip in
the SLAB_RCU case is probably not that bad performance-wise :-).