[PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[Vlastimil Babka]

The page allocator expects that page->mapping is NULL for a page being freed.
SLAB and SLUB use the slab_cache field which is in union with mapping, but
before freeing the page, the field is referenced with the "mapping" name when
set to NULL.

It's IMHO more correct (albeit functionally the same) to use the slab_cache
name as that's the field we use in SL*B, and document why we clear it in a
comment (we don't clear fields such as s_mem or freelist, as page allocator
doesn't care about those). While using the 'mapping' name would automagically
keep the code correct if the unions in struct page changed, such changes should
be done consciously and needed changes evaluated - the comment should help with
that.

Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
---
 mm/slab.c | 3 ++-
 mm/slub.c | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index 72b6743bdccf..b667f03095f1 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1399,7 +1399,8 @@ static void kmem_freepages(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
 	__ClearPageSlabPfmemalloc(page);
 	__ClearPageSlab(page);
 	page_mapcount_reset(page);
-	page->mapping = NULL;
+	/* In union with page->mapping where page allocator expects NULL */
+	page->slab_cache = NULL;
 
 	if (current->reclaim_state)
 		current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += 1 << order;
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index d3406ef65863..81c22f4c7e63 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1836,8 +1836,8 @@ static void __free_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page)
 
 	__ClearPageSlabPfmemalloc(page);
 	__ClearPageSlab(page);
-
-	page->mapping = NULL;
+	/* In union with page->mapping where page allocator expects NULL */
+	page->slab_cache = NULL;
 	if (current->reclaim_state)
 		current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += pages;
 	unaccount_slab_page(page, order, s);
-- 
2.29.2

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> The page allocator expects that page->mapping is NULL for a page being freed.
> SLAB and SLUB use the slab_cache field which is in union with mapping, but
> before freeing the page, the field is referenced with the "mapping" name when
> set to NULL.
> 
> It's IMHO more correct (albeit functionally the same) to use the slab_cache
> name as that's the field we use in SL*B, and document why we clear it in a
> comment (we don't clear fields such as s_mem or freelist, as page allocator
> doesn't care about those). While using the 'mapping' name would automagically
> keep the code correct if the unions in struct page changed, such changes should
> be done consciously and needed changes evaluated - the comment should help with
> that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> The page allocator expects that page->mapping is NULL for a page being freed.
> SLAB and SLUB use the slab_cache field which is in union with mapping, but
> before freeing the page, the field is referenced with the "mapping" name when
> set to NULL.
> 
> It's IMHO more correct (albeit functionally the same) to use the slab_cache
> name as that's the field we use in SL*B, and document why we clear it in a
> comment (we don't clear fields such as s_mem or freelist, as page allocator
> doesn't care about those). While using the 'mapping' name would automagically
> keep the code correct if the unions in struct page changed, such changes should
> be done consciously and needed changes evaluated - the comment should help with
> that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[Joonsoo Kim]

2020년 12월 11일 (금) 오전 1:00, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>님이 작성:
>
> The page allocator expects that page->mapping is NULL for a page being freed.
> SLAB and SLUB use the slab_cache field which is in union with mapping, but
> before freeing the page, the field is referenced with the "mapping" name when
> set to NULL.
>
> It's IMHO more correct (albeit functionally the same) to use the slab_cache
> name as that's the field we use in SL*B, and document why we clear it in a
> comment (we don't clear fields such as s_mem or freelist, as page allocator
> doesn't care about those). While using the 'mapping' name would automagically
> keep the code correct if the unions in struct page changed, such changes should
> be done consciously and needed changes evaluated - the comment should help with
> that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab, slub: clear the slab_cache field when freeing page

[Joonsoo Kim]

2020년 12월 11일 (금) 오전 1:00, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>님이 작성:
>
> The page allocator expects that page->mapping is NULL for a page being freed.
> SLAB and SLUB use the slab_cache field which is in union with mapping, but
> before freeing the page, the field is referenced with the "mapping" name when
> set to NULL.
>
> It's IMHO more correct (albeit functionally the same) to use the slab_cache
> name as that's the field we use in SL*B, and document why we clear it in a
> comment (we don't clear fields such as s_mem or freelist, as page allocator
> doesn't care about those). While using the 'mapping' name would automagically
> keep the code correct if the unions in struct page changed, such changes should
> be done consciously and needed changes evaluated - the comment should help with
> that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>