From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sl-b 1/6] mm: Add kmem_last_alloc() to return last allocation for memory block
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 07:17:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201208151701.GR2657@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201208085653.GA26940@js1304-desktop>
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:57:07PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:25:54AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 06:02:53PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > Hello, Paul.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:40:52PM -0800, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > > There are kernel facilities such as per-CPU reference counts that give
> > > > error messages in generic handlers or callbacks, whose messages are
> > > > unenlightening. In the case of per-CPU reference-count underflow, this
> > > > is not a problem when creating a new use of this facility because in that
> > > > case the bug is almost certainly in the code implementing that new use.
> > > > However, trouble arises when deploying across many systems, which might
> > > > exercise corner cases that were not seen during development and testing.
> > > > Here, it would be really nice to get some kind of hint as to which of
> > > > several uses the underflow was caused by.
> > > >
> > > > This commit therefore exposes a new kmem_last_alloc() function that
> > > > takes a pointer to dynamically allocated memory and returns the return
> > > > address of the call that allocated it. This pointer can reference the
> > > > middle of the block as well as the beginning of the block, as needed
> > > > by things like RCU callback functions and timer handlers that might not
> > > > know where the beginning of the memory block is. These functions and
> > > > handlers can use the return value from kmem_last_alloc() to give the
> > > > kernel hacker a better hint as to where the problem might lie.
> > >
> > > I agree with exposing allocation caller information to the other
> > > subsystem to help the debugging. Some suggestions...
> >
> > Good to hear! ;-)
> >
> > > 1. It's better to separate a slab object check (validity check) and
> > > retrieving the allocation caller. Someone else would want to check
> > > only a validity. And, it doesn't depend on the debug configuration so
> > > it's not good to bind it to the debug function.
> > >
> > > kmem_cache_valid_(obj|ptr)
> > > kmalloc_valid_(obj|ptr)
> >
> > Here both functions would say "true" for a pointer from kmalloc()?
> > Or do I need to add a third function that is happy with a pointer from
> > either source?
>
> I focused on separation and missed this case that the user sometimes
> cannot know the object source (kmalloc/kmem_cache). At first step,
> just checking whether it is a slab-object or not looks enough.
>
> int kmem_valid_obj()
OK, I will update my current kmalloc_valid_obj() to kmem_valid_obj(),
thank you!
> > I do understand that people who don't want to distinguish could just do
> > "kmem_cache_valid_ptr(p) || kmalloc_valid_ptr(p)". However, the two
> > use cases in the series have no idea whether the pointer they have came
> > from kmalloc(), kmem_cache_alloc(), or somewhere else entirely, even an
> > on-stack variable.
> >
> > Are you asking me to choose between the _obj() and _ptr() suffixes?
>
> Yes, I prefer _obj().
Then _obj() it is.
> > If not, please help me understand the distinction.
> >
> > Do we want "debug" in these names as well?
>
> I don't think so since it can be called without enabling the debug
> option.
OK, understood.
> > > 2. rename kmem_last_alloc to ...
> > >
> > > int kmem_cache_debug_alloc_caller(cache, obj, &ret_addr)
> > > int kmalloc_debug_alloc_caller(obj, &ret_addr)
> > >
> > > or debug_kmem_cache_alloc_caller()
> > >
> > > I think that function name need to include the keyword 'debug' to show
> > > itself as a debugging facility (enabled at the debugging). And, return
> > > errno and get caller address by pointer argument.
> >
> > I am quite happy to add the "debug", but my use cases have no idea
> > how the pointer was allocated. In fact, the next version of the
> > patch will also handle allocator return addresses from vmalloc().
> >
> > And for kernels without sufficient debug enabled, I need to provide
> > the name of the slab cache, and this also is to be in the next version.
>
> Okay. So, your code would be...
>
> if (kmem_valid_obj(ptr))
> kmalloc_debug_print_provenance(ptr)
> else if (vmalloc_valid_obj(ptr))
> ....
Suggestions on where to put the mem_dump_obj() or whatever name that
executes this code? Left to myself, I will pick a likely on the theory
that it can always be moved later.
This structuring does cause double work, but this should be OK because
all of the uses I know of are on error paths.
> > > 3. If concrete error message is needed, please introduce more functions.
> > >
> > > void *kmalloc_debug_error(errno)
> >
> > Agreed, in fact, I was planning to have a function that printed out
> > a suitable error-message continuation to the console for ease-of-use
> > reasons. For example, why is the caller deciding how deep the stack
> > frame is? ;-)
> >
> > So something like this?
> >
> > void kmalloc_debug_print_provenance(void *ptr);
> >
> > With the understanding that it will print something helpful regardless
> > of where ptr came from, within the constraints of the kernel build and
> > boot options?
>
> Looks good idea. I suggest a name, kmem_dump_obj(), for this function.
> In this case, I don't think that "debug" keyword is needed since it shows
> something useful (slab cache info) even if debug option isn't enabled.
>
> So, for summary, we need to introduce two functions to accomplish your
> purpose. Please correct me if wrong.
>
> int kmem_valid_obj(ptr)
> void kmem_dump_obj(ptr)
Within slab, agreed.
We course also need something like mem_dump_obj() to handle a pointer
with unknown provenance, along with the vmalloc_valid_obj() and the
vmalloc_dump_obj(). And similar functions should other allocation
sources become important.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-08 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-05 0:40 [PATCH RFC sl-b] Export return addresses for better diagnostics Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 1/6] mm: Add kmem_last_alloc() to return last allocation for memory block paulmck
2020-12-07 9:02 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-07 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-08 8:57 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-08 15:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 2/6] mm: Add kmem_last_alloc_errstring() to provide more kmem_last_alloc() info paulmck
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 3/6] rcu: Make call_rcu() print allocation address of double-freed callback paulmck
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 4/6] mm: Create kmem_last_alloc_stack() to provide stack trace in slub paulmck
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 5/6] percpu_ref: Print allocator upon reference-count underflow paulmck
2020-12-05 0:40 ` [PATCH sl-b 6/6] percpu_ref: Print stack trace " paulmck
2020-12-09 1:11 ` [PATCH RFC v2 sl-b] Export return addresses etc. for better diagnostics Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 1:12 ` [PATCH v2 sl-b 1/5] mm: Add mem_dump_obj() to print source of memory block paulmck
2020-12-09 8:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-09 14:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 17:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-09 17:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 17:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-12-09 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-10 10:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-12-10 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-10 12:04 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-10 23:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 1:13 ` [PATCH v2 sl-b 2/5] mm: Make mem_dump_obj() handle NULL and zero-sized pointers paulmck
2020-12-09 17:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-12-10 3:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 1:13 ` [PATCH v2 sl-b 3/5] mm: Make mem_dump_obj() handle vmalloc() memory paulmck
2020-12-09 17:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-12-09 19:39 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-12-09 23:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-10 10:49 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-12-09 19:36 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-12-09 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-09 20:04 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-12-09 1:13 ` [PATCH v2 sl-b 4/5] rcu: Make call_rcu() print mem_dump_obj() info for double-freed callback paulmck
2020-12-09 1:13 ` [PATCH v2 sl-b 5/5] percpu_ref: Dump mem_dump_obj() info upon reference-count underflow paulmck
2020-12-11 1:19 ` [PATCH RFC v2 sl-b] Export return addresses etc. for better diagnostics Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-11 1:19 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 1/6] mm: Add mem_dump_obj() to print source of memory block paulmck
2020-12-11 2:22 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-11 3:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-11 3:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-11 6:58 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-11 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-11 6:54 ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-12-11 1:19 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 2/6] mm: Make mem_dump_obj() handle NULL and zero-sized pointers paulmck
2020-12-11 1:20 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 3/6] mm: Make mem_dump_obj() handle vmalloc() memory paulmck
2020-12-11 1:20 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 4/6] mm: Make mem_obj_dump() vmalloc() dumps include start and length paulmck
2020-12-11 1:20 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 5/6] rcu: Make call_rcu() print mem_dump_obj() info for double-freed callback paulmck
2020-12-11 1:20 ` [PATCH v3 sl-b 6/6] percpu_ref: Dump mem_dump_obj() info upon reference-count underflow paulmck
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=20201208151701.GR2657@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).