From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794318583; b=5P+crmYWOxRPUPj9OtytVw0izvdlAxOUDVOJmq/49s9aWAZTEdUyFjMABQi1pZ5uaxcB PRv3RSXeQNCY3ITCcIc+Yu+NwnAKqfUxmIB3jbS0C2xCnktdvjaabIntVFkqBL0q/G9MV Vj/VkjNrSZ5WpSyI4cOGVg0Xe2rrMuuZc8ZSvM/rq0yk6ykiyTdp1SmpN8EAauyCMeWvc uz/JP8hG+57jAmsjwguQN47rvMIPBcnMTHG5FKRYxOUr9DIF9HhvnCOnRw5MOxNi19dRV bCkDm48dfqMRryUDhhmbKyu8aejRIejMMUVt52JiaBgCQ3T4/Ekx/ZHvBdJ+A28IVbg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794318583; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=kM24Iv0O8Q0JTUrX0qb/LBnPU6JMQXqIqVQiqBU/VrA=; b=KF5z2/T4Z2m/Q6rppjV2Nym/QzJNFf3MQrcwsLY2Q4wG4T4ENWnHdE3d/IGVo+lrBB8a 1v4KcJuS2X3GgbYdatClnBYbcVjn+k2f7R2Ok2VTJcF8OUTI8vFr7oDZkjavsdtkviwKr TVrqCk/xm7LpGl3U0tdzu1nnHD0yl8OR6LFxfj3SB1w8e3rIWS+J5McXnmrrhDG8QDzuX jrxz+WnXIeCY3Qt40s9vxCEBuQCXQ0FWicwsufgZhKIx0YQ4/WYdQxe/KJxiBnr8f6PEo 5Dse1dVQE9lpTybRB0n/xiBLrAP93s0zu8GjXU1OezGScmh6INy5c6ORUGjVzkvLZxg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=FGxENUEx; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74BAC606A31C; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 13:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=FGxENUEx Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CB781F0089F; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794318582; bh=kM24Iv0O8Q0JTUrX0qb/LBnPU6JMQXqIqVQiqBU/VrA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=FGxENUExDJd15vnxkEJJOX9RFzx/yli0npWPMJNIfD+TXZS4mzFWYW4UssjxQKAgY LUG1BRfLBAofJn0SGbwyr82mb4BNIsIvViWofIDjZYpFoDYFAp3ylSj1DL4Wq3Lfvm jZSEk1Awn0SiCbl8jpkJA6VrVXxao31yIx4xDQ7ZwSt39p7uzjJGqN5Stv6XN+p1Wz cthl7ukNH7qWaWL4FgcSl98mNRadY7vNiWB9t95FrklFFvnJi9u6VJxy+BzuyjshEY Qd+sBN26cD200bgigwgEqeR3qGjnBTJO6Kq7sgujvelh5LAqaizjRMTlr/mG27bFPG QMxhq0ls4jdag== Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 14:49:40 +0100 From: Harry Yoo To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Hao Li , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , kernel-team@meta.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Sashiko Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next-fixes v2 4/5] mm/slab: fix a deadlock in memcg_alloc_abort_single() Message-ID: References: <20261103-kmalloc-nolock-fixes-v2-0-19167cfe4779@kernel.org> <20261103-kmalloc-nolock-fixes-v2-4-19167cfe4779@kernel.org> <6441429b-eff2-485b-acf3-26c3034910ae@kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 04:46:26PM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 07:35 AM Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > >> I don't insist on kfree_nolock() there, > >> but can we try free_to_pcs() before defer_free() ? > >> Like: > >> > >> if (likely(allow_spin)) > >> __slab_free(s, slab, object, object, 1, _RET_IP_); > >> else if (!can_free_to_pcs(slab) || !free_to_pcs(s, object, false)) > >> defer_free(s, object); > > > > Why not try free_to_pcs with allow_spin as well then, and improve > > memcg_alloc_abort_single() for both contexts? > > yep. Even better. > The bulk side does that already. > Like: > > if (likely(can_free_to_pcs(slab)) && > likely(free_to_pcs(s, object, allow_spin))) > return; > > if (likely(allow_spin)) > __slab_free(s, slab, object, object, 1, _RET_IP_); > else > defer_free(s, object); > ? Will adjust in v3 (hopefully by end of this week!) Thanks. -- Cheers, Harry / Hyeonggon