Re: [External] [PATCH 7/8] hugetlb: make free_huge_page irq safe

From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
	Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH 7/8] hugetlb: make free_huge_page irq safe
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:44:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b593cd13-35d3-8311-9e72-46e6a1c5b72b@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGGGfBE0JVrxyFsW@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 3/29/21 12:49 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 27-03-21 15:06:36, Muchun Song wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:29 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.  However, as seen in [1] this
>>> does not cover all cases.  Instead, make the locks taken in the
>>> free_huge_page irq safe.
>>>
>>> This patch does the following:
>>> - Make hugetlb_lock irq safe.  This is mostly a simple process of
>>>   changing spin_*lock calls to spin_*lock_irq* calls.
>>> - Make subpool lock irq safe in a similar manner.
>>> - Revert the !in_task check and workqueue handoff.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/000000000000f1c03b05bc43aadc@google.com/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
>>
>> The changes are straightforward.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
>>
>> Since this patchset aims to fix a real word issue. Should we add a Fixes
>> tag?
> 
> Do we know since when it is possible to use hugetlb in the networking
> context? Maybe this is possible since ever but I am wondering why the
> lockdep started complaining only now. Maybe just fuzzing finally started
> using this setup which nobody does normally.
> 

From my memory and email search, this first came up with powerpc iommu here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180905112341.21355-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com/

Aneesh proposed a solution similar to this, but 'fixed' the issue by changing
the powerpc code.

AFAICT, the put_page/free_huge_page code path has only been 'safe' to
call from task context since it was originally written.  The real
question is when was it first possible for some code to do (the last)
put_page for a hugetlbfs page from irq context?  My 'guess' is that this
may have been possible for quite a while.  I can imagine a dma reference
to a hugetlb page held after the user space reference goes away.
-- 
Mike Kravetz