[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 04/49] mm: shrinker: remove redundant shrinker_rwsem in debugfs operations
- To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:19:01 +0800
- Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, tkhai@xxxxx, vbabka@xxxxxxx, roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx, djwong@xxxxxxxxxx, brauner@xxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, steven.price@xxxxxxx, cel@xxxxxxxxxx, senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx, yujie.liu@xxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, muchun.song@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-erofs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-bcache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:19:24 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Hi Simon,
On 2023/7/28 16:13, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:04:17PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
The debugfs_remove_recursive() will wait for debugfs_file_put() to return,
so the shrinker will not be freed when doing debugfs operations (such as
shrinker_debugfs_count_show() and shrinker_debugfs_scan_write()), so there
is no need to hold shrinker_rwsem during debugfs operations.
Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/shrinker_debug.c | 14 --------------
1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/shrinker_debug.c b/mm/shrinker_debug.c
index 3ab53fad8876..f1becfd45853 100644
--- a/mm/shrinker_debug.c
+++ b/mm/shrinker_debug.c
@@ -55,11 +55,6 @@ static int shrinker_debugfs_count_show(struct seq_file *m,
void *v)
if (!count_per_node)
return -ENOMEM;
- ret = down_read_killable(&shrinker_rwsem);
- if (ret) {
- kfree(count_per_node);
- return ret;
- }
rcu_read_lock();
Hi Qi Zheng,
As can be seen in the next hunk, this function returns 'ret'.
However, with this change 'ret' is uninitialised unless
signal_pending() returns non-zero in the while loop below.
Thanks for your feedback, the 'ret' should be initialized to 0,
will fix it.
Thanks,
Qi
This is flagged in a clan-16 W=1 build.
mm/shrinker_debug.c:87:11: warning: variable 'ret' is used uninitialized
whenever 'do' loop exits because its condition is false
[-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)) != NULL);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mm/shrinker_debug.c:92:9: note: uninitialized use occurs here
return ret;
^~~
mm/shrinker_debug.c:87:11: note: remove the condition if it is always true
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)) != NULL);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
mm/shrinker_debug.c:77:7: warning: variable 'ret' is used uninitialized
whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
if (!memcg_aware) {
^~~~~~~~~~~~
mm/shrinker_debug.c:92:9: note: uninitialized use occurs here
return ret;
^~~
mm/shrinker_debug.c:77:3: note: remove the 'if' if its condition is always
false
if (!memcg_aware) {
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mm/shrinker_debug.c:52:9: note: initialize the variable 'ret' to silence this
warning
int ret, nid;
^
= 0
memcg_aware = shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE;
@@ -92,7 +87,6 @@ static int shrinker_debugfs_count_show(struct seq_file *m,
void *v)
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)) != NULL);
rcu_read_unlock();
- up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
kfree(count_per_node);
return ret;
...
|