From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9001C433E0 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3A1236F9 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:24:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1E3A1236F9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=bytedance.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 338B46B0393; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2C22A6B0394; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:24:47 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0ED276B0395; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:24:47 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0217.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.217]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D896B0393 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB714DC3 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:24:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77682526572.25.cast95_04121e7274f2 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FE31804E3A1 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:24:46 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: cast95_04121e7274f2 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6872 Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id b8so5601365plx.0 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 04:24:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bytedance-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UtS85N+Smc03ohK3CJF7shWpZzDxBCUbzsBkICq+rlA=; b=D3jJi18lhxmZE71W9Og4n4blgUtU6tZudM/f5YNsxD84LFG9w24pL8mm7a2s0dXvCo mBoAEpg5cU8X0+I4rXEVlii5Kql0mhpJoA/Ubx271o+KG1Ym78CwKBRwbSXaSARaf0Bf ipYKu5RtublV7w1KK6Quk5cfxBWF0mhnQUAprMaF4jTw7wTpYEsWODOnCZUfpdx6kfih hVHC6MDyDSsE/0MUBd1EW4zjHpdbXDDuOHK8tvRcQFvLPRheiupV71YDvg7YobjUaXhA nayP5YiqClQCJfeMUopPbc/Saie4ENGscwi2DcW/rxCP0rSKq8+HEDBdz/UqIQa8K7xk aaYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UtS85N+Smc03ohK3CJF7shWpZzDxBCUbzsBkICq+rlA=; b=OyHk7MOAABa/IeC77408+y8FQ0E206mnKgijn6QW5TkZwF105HCmi3U//UDDqU55+G QOShp6XgyFCtWsTgps3UemZ0Qz5s20V9bnCy0I6dSRgNLYlZyzS17XoKqQyNZU0xRtb1 7OwiWnGZw/1NnArXfFuzf9MdiM51+TtviWR39Di8/sMbxqiP5a+xsWryia8lvLcUCjeS Cqx3bH3GjGXWPZ2P1JQqD8UQL6CHUi9+D1XjdXT3xF/J4ZNqNOKEithOaQLV4k56W+fr rCeGHmUZ2NyJD04KNasX0DPyIjW3rQaMlL9LhIvzDCekjnaY6KoAjV9U7P89BKaV2k8J HY9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QFe8rGjit0BeuPoq0tg4wWjy95l8bLofPnFIlxAgeHEjrf0ER 2zeGfpsOJb7OVz85xQvghXskU+24dIJD1Uo99lK+d4gga9s2vBFYlkE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1MKl1jOxXLKdWPgRd2QRQG8qOfU0CNU5J6d21DZtiqKnlOfCKPHKh4nOiX5TisjBNNeR6c4rAx2+ADXRC5as= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5405:: with SMTP id z5mr3581866pjh.13.1610108684862; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 04:24:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210107123854.GJ13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210107141130.GL13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210108084330.GW13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210108093136.GY13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210108114411.GZ13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210108120421.GC13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20210108120421.GC13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Muchun Song Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:24:04 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] mm: hugetlb: fix a race between freeing and dissolving the page To: Michal Hocko , Mike Kravetz Cc: Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , Andi Kleen , Linux Memory Management List , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:04 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 08-01-21 19:52:54, Muchun Song wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:44 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Fri 08-01-21 18:08:57, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 5:31 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri 08-01-21 17:01:03, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:43 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu 07-01-21 23:11:22, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > But I find a tricky problem to solve. See free_huge_page(). > > > > > > > > If we are in non-task context, we should schedule a work > > > > > > > > to free the page. We reuse the page->mapping. If the page > > > > > > > > is already freed by the dissolve path. We should not touch > > > > > > > > the page->mapping. So we need to check PageHuge(). > > > > > > > > The check and llist_add() should be protected by > > > > > > > > hugetlb_lock. But we cannot do that. Right? If dissolve > > > > > > > > happens after it is linked to the list. We also should > > > > > > > > remove it from the list (hpage_freelist). It seems to make > > > > > > > > the thing more complex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure I follow you here but yes PageHuge under hugetlb_lock > > > > > > > should be the reliable way to check for the race. I am not sure why we > > > > > > > really need to care about mapping or other state. > > > > > > > > > > > > CPU0: CPU1: > > > > > > free_huge_page(page) > > > > > > if (PageHuge(page)) > > > > > > dissolve_free_huge_page(page) > > > > > > spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock) > > > > > > update_and_free_page(page) > > > > > > spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock) > > > > > > llist_add(page->mapping) > > > > > > // the mapping is corrupted > > > > > > > > > > > > The PageHuge(page) and llist_add() should be protected by > > > > > > hugetlb_lock. Right? If so, we cannot hold hugetlb_lock > > > > > > in free_huge_page() path. > > > > > > > > > > OK, I see. I completely forgot about this snowflake. I thought that > > > > > free_huge_page was a typo missing initial __. Anyway you are right that > > > > > this path needs a check as well. But I don't see why we couldn't use the > > > > > lock here. The lock can be held only inside the !in_task branch. > > > > > > > > Because we hold the hugetlb_lock without disable irq. So if an interrupt > > > > occurs after we hold the lock. And we also free a HugeTLB page. Then > > > > it leads to deadlock. > > > > > > There is nothing really to prevent making hugetlb_lock irq safe, isn't > > > it? > > > > Yeah. We can make the hugetlb_lock irq safe. But why have we not > > done this? Maybe the commit changelog can provide more information. > > > > See https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/c77c0a8ac4c522638a8242fcb9de9496e3cdbb2d > > Dang! Maybe it is the time to finally stack one workaround on top of the > other and put this code into the shape. The amount of hackery and subtle > details has just grown beyond healthy! >From readability point of view, maybe making the hugetlb_lock irq safe is an improvement (in the feature). The details are always messy. :) > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs