From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, john.ogness@linutronix.de, urezki@gmail.com,
ast@fb.com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: select PREEMPT_COUNT if HUGETLB_PAGE for in_atomic use
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:49:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YEnno0Qt90omMXUG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210311021321.127500-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:13:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> put_page does not correctly handle all calling contexts for hugetlb
> pages. This was recently discussed in the threads [1] and [2].
>
> free_huge_page is the routine called for the final put_page of huegtlb
> pages. Since at least the beginning of git history, free_huge_page has
> acquired the hugetlb_lock to move the page to a free list and possibly
> perform other processing. When this code was originally written, the
> hugetlb_lock should have been made irq safe.
>
> For many years, nobody noticed this situation until lockdep code caught
> free_huge_page being called from irq context. By this time, another
> lock (hugetlb subpool) was also taken in the free_huge_page path.
AFAICT there's no actual problem with making spool->lock IRQ-safe too.
> In addition, hugetlb cgroup code had been added which could hold
> hugetlb_lock for a considerable period of time.
cgroups, always bloody cgroups. The scheduler (and a fair number of
other places) get to deal with cgroups with IRQs disabled, so I'm sure
this can too.
> Because of this, commit
> c77c0a8ac4c5 ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in non-task
> context") was added to address the issue of free_huge_page being called
> from irq context. That commit hands off free_huge_page processing to a
> workqueue if !in_task.
>
> The !in_task check handles the case of being called from irq context.
> However, it does not take into account the case when called with irqs
> disabled as in [1].
>
> To complicate matters, functionality has been added to hugetlb
> such that free_huge_page may block/sleep in certain situations. The
> hugetlb_lock is of course dropped before potentially blocking.
AFAICT that's because CMA, right? That's only hstate_is_gigantic() and
free_gigantic_page() that has that particular trainwreck.
So you could move the workqueue there, and leave all the other hugetlb
sizes unaffected. Afaict if you limit the workqueue crud to
cma_clear_bitmap(), you don't get your..
> One way to handle all calling contexts is to have free_huge_page always
> send pages to the workqueue for processing. This idea was briefly
> discussed here [3], but has some undesirable side effects.
... user visible side effects either.
> Ideally, the hugetlb_lock should have been irq safe from the beginning
> and any code added to the free_huge_page path should have taken this
> into account. However, this has not happened. The code today does have
> the ability to hand off requests to a workqueue. It does this for calls
> from irq context. Changing the check in the code from !in_task to
> in_atomic would handle the situations when called with irqs disabled.
> However, it does not not handle the case when called with a spinlock
> held. This is needed because the code could block/sleep.
I'll argue the current workqueue thing is in the wrong place to begin
with.
So how about you make hugetlb_lock and spool->lock IRQ-safe, move thw
workqueue thingy into cma_release(), and then worry about optimizing the
cgroup crap?
Correctness first, performance second. Also, if you really care about
performance, not using cgroups is a very good option anyway.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-11 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-11 2:13 [PATCH] hugetlb: select PREEMPT_COUNT if HUGETLB_PAGE for in_atomic use Mike Kravetz
2021-03-11 5:43 ` Andrew Morton
2021-03-11 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 8:26 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 8:27 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-11 9:01 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-11 9:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 9:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-11 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 11:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-11 12:02 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 17:25 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-03-11 12:49 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-11 17:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-11 9:49 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=YEnno0Qt90omMXUG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=almasrymina@google.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/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).