linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	surenb@google.com, joaodias@google.com, willy@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: support sysfs
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:49:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YCLLKDEQ4NYqb5Y5@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YCKwjz0uDPBhbFr5@google.com>

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:55:59AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:56:30AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:34:51PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 2/8/21 10:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >         char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
> > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
> > > > > > > > > +    struct cma_stat    *stat;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've added a bunch of pointless
> > > > > > > > extra code to the implementation.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Originally, I went with the object lifetime with struct cma as you
> > > > > > > suggested to make code simple. However, Greg KH wanted to have
> > > > > > > release for kobj_type since it is consistent with other kboject
> > > > > > > handling.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Are you talking about the kobj in your new struct cma_stat? That seems
> > > > > > like circular logic if so. I'm guessing Greg just wanted kobj methods
> > > > > > to be used *if* you are dealing with kobjects. That's a narrower point.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I can't imagine that he would have insisted on having additional
> > > > > > allocations just so that kobj freeing methods could be used. :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Um, yes, I was :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can not add a kobject to a structure and then somehow think you can
> > > > > just ignore the reference counting issues involved.  If a kobject is
> > > > > part of a structure then the kobject is responsible for controling the
> > > > > lifespan of the memory, nothing else can be.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So by making the kobject dynamic, you properly handle that memory
> > > > > lifespan of the object, instead of having to worry about the lifespan of
> > > > > the larger object (which the original patch was not doing.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does that make sense?
> > > > > 
> > > > That part makes sense, yes, thanks. The part that I'm trying to straighten
> > > > out is, why was kobject even added to the struct cma_stat in the first
> > > > place? Why not just leave .stat as a static member variable, without
> > > > a kobject in it, and done?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I think I get it now: this is in order to allow a separate lifetime
> > > for the .stat member. I was sort of implicitly assuming that the "right"
> > > way to do it is just have the whole object use one lifetime management,
> > > but as you say, there is no kobject being added to the parent.
> > > 
> > > I still feel odd about the allocation and freeing of something that seems
> > > to be logically the same lifetime (other than perhaps a few, briefly pending
> > > sysfs reads, at the end of life). So I'd still think that the kobject should
> > > be added to the parent...
> 
> sruct cma_stat {
> 	spinlock_t lock;
> 	unsigned long pages_attemtp;
> 	unsigned long pages_fail;
> };
> 
> struct cma {
> 	..
> 	..
> 	struct kobject kobj;
> 	struct cma_stat stat;
> };
> 
> I guess this is what Johan suggested. I agree with it.
> 
> > 
> > That's fine if you want to add it to the parent.  If so, then the
> > kobject controls the lifetime of the structure, nothing else can.
> 
> The problem was parent object(i.e., struct cma cma_areas) is
> static arrary so kobj->release function will be NULL or just
> dummy. Is it okay? I thought it was one of the what you wanted
> to avoid it.

No, that is not ok.

> > Either is fine with me, what is "forbidden" is having a kobject and
> > somehow thinking that it does not control the lifetime of the structure.
> 
> Since parent object is static arrary, there is no need to control the
> lifetime so I am curious if parent object approach is okay from kobject
> handling point of view.

So the array is _NEVER_ freed?  If not, fine, don't provide a release
function for the kobject, but ick, just make a dynamic kobject I don't
see the problem for something so tiny and not very many...

I worry that any static kobject might be copied/pasted as someone might
think this is an ok thing to do.  And it's not an ok thing to do.

thanks,

greg k-h


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-09 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-08 18:01 [PATCH v2] mm: cma: support sysfs Minchan Kim
2021-02-08 21:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-02-08 23:36   ` Minchan Kim
2021-02-09  1:57     ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09  4:19       ` Minchan Kim
2021-02-09  5:18         ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09  5:27           ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09  6:13       ` Greg KH
2021-02-09  6:27         ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09  6:34           ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09  6:56             ` Greg KH
2021-02-09 15:55               ` Minchan Kim
2021-02-09 17:49                 ` Greg KH [this message]
2021-02-09 20:11                   ` John Hubbard
2021-02-09 21:13                     ` Minchan Kim
2021-02-10  6:43                       ` Greg KH
2021-02-10  7:12                         ` Minchan Kim
2021-02-10  7:16                           ` John Hubbard
2021-02-10  7:26                             ` Greg KH
2021-02-10  7:50                               ` John Hubbard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YCLLKDEQ4NYqb5Y5@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=joaodias@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).