From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE3D6B0007 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id v13-v6so349822wmc.1 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id d5-v6sor9021399wri.16.2018.06.19.08.08.40 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:08:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible regression in "slab, slub: skip unnecessary kasan_cache_shutdown()" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jason@zx2c4.com Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux MM , LKML On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:05 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > HI Dimitry, > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:55 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Your code frees all entries before freeing the cache, right? If you > > add total_entries check before freeing the cache, it does not fire, > > right? > > Yes, certainly. > > > Are you using SLAB or SLUB? We stress kernel pretty heavily, but with > > SLAB, and I suspect Shakeel may also be using SLAB. So if you are > > using SLUB, there is significant chance that it's a bug in the SLUB > > part of the change. > > Nice intuition; I am indeed using SLUB rather than SLAB... > Can you try once with SLAB? Just to make sure that it is SLUB specific.