From: Waiman Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Mike Kravetz <email@example.com>, Michal Hocko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrew Morton <email@example.com>, Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:13:40 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On 12/16/19 2:08 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 12/16/19 8:17 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> I am afraid that work_struct is too large to be stuffed into the struct >>> page array (because of the lockdep part). >> Yeah, this needs to be done without touching struct page. >> >> Which is why I had done the stack allocated way in this patch, but we >> cannot wait for it to complete in irq, so that's out the window. Andi >> had suggested percpu allocated work items, but having played with the >> idea over the weekend, I don't see how we can prevent another page being >> freed on the same cpu before previous work on the same cpu is complete >> (cpu0 wants to free pageA, schedules the work, in the mean time cpu0 >> wants to free pageB and workerfn for pageA still hasn't been called). >> >>> I think that it would be just safer to make hugetlb_lock irq safe. Are >>> there any other locks that would require the same? >> It would be simpler. Any performance issues that arise would probably >> be only seen in microbenchmarks, assuming we want to have full irq safety. >> If we don't need to worry about hardirq, then even better. >> >> The subpool lock would also need to be irq safe. > I do think we need to worry about hardirq. There are no restruictions that > put_page can not be called from hardirq context. > > I am concerned about the latency of making hugetlb_lock (and potentially > subpool lock) hardirq safe. When these locks were introduced (before my > time) the concept of making them irq safe was not considered. Recently, > I learned that the hugetlb_lock is held for a linear scan of ALL hugetlb > pages during a cgroup reparentling operation. That is just too long. > > If there is no viable work queue solution, then I think we would like to > restructure the hugetlb locking before a change to just make hugetlb_lock > irq safe. The idea would be to split the scope of what is done under > hugetlb_lock. Most of it would never be executed in irq context. Then > have a small/limited set of functionality that really needs to be irq > safe protected by an irq safe lock. > Please take a look at my recently posted patch to see if that is an acceptable workqueue based solution. Thanks, Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-16 19:13 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-12-11 19:46 [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: Disable softIRQ when taking hugetlb_lock Waiman Long 2019-12-11 22:04 ` Mike Kravetz 2019-12-11 22:19 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-12 1:11 ` Mike Kravetz 2019-12-12 6:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-12 6:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-12 19:04 ` [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-12 19:22 ` Mike Kravetz 2019-12-12 19:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-12 20:52 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-12 21:04 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-16 13:26 ` Michal Hocko 2019-12-16 15:38 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-16 18:44 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-17 9:00 ` Michal Hocko 2019-12-17 18:05 ` Mike Kravetz 2019-12-18 12:18 ` hugetlbfs testing coverage (was: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue) Michal Hocko 2019-12-12 21:01 ` [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue Waiman Long 2019-12-16 13:37 ` Michal Hocko 2019-12-16 16:17 ` Waiman Long 2019-12-16 16:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-16 17:18 ` Matthew Wilcox 2019-12-16 19:08 ` Mike Kravetz 2019-12-16 19:13 ` Waiman Long [this message] 2019-12-12 21:32 ` [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: Disable softIRQ when taking hugetlb_lock Andi Kleen 2019-12-12 22:42 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2019-12-11 23:05 ` Andi Kleen
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue' \ /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
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).