* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 14:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Zhiqiang Liu
@ 2019-05-06 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-06 15:22 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-06 14:48 ` Oscar Salvador
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2019-05-06 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhiqiang Liu
Cc: mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc, Andrew Morton
On Mon 06-05-19 22:06:38, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>
> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
> #!/bin/bash
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>
> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
> show_stack+0x24/0x30
> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>
> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
> v1->v2: add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
A new version for single ack is usually an overkill and only makes the
situation more confusing. You have also didn't add Cc: stable as
suggested during the review. That part is arguably more important.
You also haven't CCed Andrew (now done) and your patch will not get
merged without him applying it. Anyway, let's wait for Andrew to pick
this patch up.
>
> mm/hugetlb.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 6cdc7b2..c1e7b81 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1574,8 +1574,9 @@ static struct page *alloc_surplus_huge_page(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> */
> if (h->surplus_huge_pages >= h->nr_overcommit_huge_pages) {
> SetPageHugeTemporary(page);
> + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> put_page(page);
> - page = NULL;
> + return NULL;
> } else {
> h->surplus_huge_pages++;
> h->surplus_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]++;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2019-05-06 15:22 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-06 19:07 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zhiqiang Liu @ 2019-05-06 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc, Andrew Morton
> On Mon 06-05-19 22:06:38, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
>> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>>
>> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
>> #!/bin/bash
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>>
>> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
>> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
>> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>>
>> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
>> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
>> Call trace:
>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
>> show_stack+0x24/0x30
>> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
>> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
>> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
>> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
>> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
>> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
>> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
>> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
>> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
>> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
>> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
>> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
>> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
>> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
>> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
>> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
>> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
>> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
>> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>>
>> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
>> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
>> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2: add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> A new version for single ack is usually an overkill and only makes the
> situation more confusing. You have also didn't add Cc: stable as
> suggested during the review. That part is arguably more important.
>
> You also haven't CCed Andrew (now done) and your patch will not get
> merged without him applying it. Anyway, let's wait for Andrew to pick
> this patch up.
>
Thank you for your patience. I am sorry for misunderstanding your advice
in your last mail.
Does adding Cc: stable mean adding Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
tag in the patch or Ccing stable@vger.kernel.org when sending the new mail?
You are very nice. Thanks again.
>> mm/hugetlb.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index 6cdc7b2..c1e7b81 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -1574,8 +1574,9 @@ static struct page *alloc_surplus_huge_page(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> */
>> if (h->surplus_huge_pages >= h->nr_overcommit_huge_pages) {
>> SetPageHugeTemporary(page);
>> + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
>> put_page(page);
>> - page = NULL;
>> + return NULL;
>> } else {
>> h->surplus_huge_pages++;
>> h->surplus_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]++;
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 15:22 ` Zhiqiang Liu
@ 2019-05-06 19:07 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-07 3:25 ` Zhiqiang Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2019-05-06 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhiqiang Liu
Cc: mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc, Andrew Morton
On Mon 06-05-19 23:22:08, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
[...]
> Does adding Cc: stable mean adding Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> tag in the patch or Ccing stable@vger.kernel.org when sending the new mail?
The former. See Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst for more.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 19:07 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2019-05-07 3:25 ` Zhiqiang Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zhiqiang Liu @ 2019-05-07 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc, Andrew Morton
> On Mon 06-05-19 23:22:08, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> [...]
>> Does adding Cc: stable mean adding Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> tag in the patch or Ccing stable@vger.kernel.org when sending the new mail?
>
> The former. See Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst for more.
>
> Thanks!
Thank you, Oscar Salvador and Mike Kravetz again.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 14:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-06 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2019-05-06 14:48 ` Oscar Salvador
2019-05-06 17:19 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-05-09 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Oscar Salvador @ 2019-05-06 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhiqiang Liu
Cc: mhocko, mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 10:06:38PM +0800, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>
> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
> #!/bin/bash
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>
> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
> show_stack+0x24/0x30
> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>
> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 14:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-06 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-06 14:48 ` Oscar Salvador
@ 2019-05-06 17:19 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-05-08 11:31 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-09 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Kravetz @ 2019-05-06 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhiqiang Liu, mhocko, shenkai8, linfeilong
Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, wangwang2, Zhoukang (A), Mingfangsen, agl, nacc
On 5/6/19 7:06 AM, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>
> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
> #!/bin/bash
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>
> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
> show_stack+0x24/0x30
> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>
> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Good catch. Sorry, for the late reply.
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
--
Mike Kravetz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 17:19 ` Mike Kravetz
@ 2019-05-08 11:31 ` Zhiqiang Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zhiqiang Liu @ 2019-05-08 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Kravetz, mhocko, shenkai8, linfeilong, Andrew Morton
Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, wangwang2, Zhoukang (A), Mingfangsen, agl, nacc
> On 5/6/19 7:06 AM, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
>> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>>
>> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
>> #!/bin/bash
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>>
>> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
>> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
>> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>>
>> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
>> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
>> Call trace:
>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
>> show_stack+0x24/0x30
>> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
>> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
>> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
>> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
>> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
>> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
>> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
>> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
>> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
>> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
>> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
>> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
>> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
>> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
>> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
>> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
>> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
>> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
>> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>>
>> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
>> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
>> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> Good catch. Sorry, for the late reply.
>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
>
Thank your for the reply.
Friendly ping ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: Don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock
2019-05-06 14:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Zhiqiang Liu
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2019-05-06 17:19 ` Mike Kravetz
@ 2019-05-09 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2019-05-09 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhiqiang Liu
Cc: mhocko, mike.kravetz, shenkai8, linfeilong, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, wangwang2, Zhoukang (A),
Mingfangsen, agl, nacc
On Mon, 6 May 2019 22:06:38 +0800 Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com> wrote:
> From: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
>
> spinlock recursion happened when do LTP test:
> #!/bin/bash
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
> ./runltp -p -f hugetlb &
>
> The dtor returned by get_compound_page_dtor in __put_compound_page
> may be the function of free_huge_page which will lock the hugetlb_lock,
> so don't put_page in lock of hugetlb_lock.
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, hugemmap05/1079
> lock: hugetlb_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: hugemmap05/1079, .owner_cpu: 0
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x198
> show_stack+0x24/0x30
> dump_stack+0xa4/0xcc
> spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
> do_raw_spin_lock+0xd0/0x108
> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
> free_huge_page+0x9c/0x260
> __put_compound_page+0x44/0x50
> __put_page+0x2c/0x60
> alloc_surplus_huge_page.constprop.19+0xf0/0x140
> hugetlb_acct_memory+0x104/0x378
> hugetlb_reserve_pages+0xe0/0x250
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0xc0/0x140
> mmap_region+0x3e8/0x5b0
> do_mmap+0x280/0x460
> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf4/0x128
> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0xb4/0x258
> __arm64_sys_mmap+0x34/0x48
> el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
> el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
> el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>
> Fixes: 9980d744a0 ("mm, hugetlb: get rid of surplus page accounting tricks")
> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>
> Reported-by: Wang Wang <wangwang2@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
THanks. I added cc:stable@vger.kernel.org to this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread