archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Kravetz <>
To: Andrew Morton <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 09/05/2018 12:58 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 06:48:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <> wrote:
>>> I didn't. The reason I looked at current patch is to enable the usage of
>>> put_page() from irq context. We do allow that for non hugetlb pages. So was
>>> not sure adding that additional restriction for hugetlb
>>> is really needed. Further the conversion to irqsave/irqrestore was
>>> straightforward.
>> straightforward, sure.  but is it the right thing to do?  do we want to
>> be able to put_page() a hugetlb page from hardirq context?
> Calling put_page() against a huge page from hardirq seems like the
> right thing to do - even if it's rare now, it will presumably become
> more common as the hugepage virus spreads further across the kernel. 
> And the present asymmetry is quite a wart.
> That being said, arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_iommu.c:mm_iommu_free() is
> the only known site which does this (yes?)

IIUC, the powerpc iommu code 'remaps' user allocated hugetlb pages.  It is
these pages that are of issue at put_page time.  I'll admit that code is new
to me and I may not fully understand.  However, if this is accurate then it
makes it really difficult to track down any other similar usage patterns.
I can not find a reference to PageHuge in the powerpc iommu code.

>                                            so perhaps we could put some
> stopgap workaround into that site and add a runtime warning into the
> put_page() code somewhere to detect puttage of huge pages from hardirq
> and softirq contexts.

I think we would add the warning/etc at free_huge_page.  The issue would
only apply to hugetlb pages, not THP.

But, the more I think about it the more I think Aneesh's patch to do
spin_lock/unlock_irqsave is the right way to go.  Currently, we only
know of one place where a put_page of hugetlb pages is done from softirq
context.  So, we could take the spin_lock/unlock_bh as Matthew suggested.
When the powerpc iommu code was added, I doubt this was taken into account.
I would be afraid of someone adding put_page from hardirq context.

Mike Kravetz

> And attention will need to be paid to -stable backporting.  How long
> has mm_iommu_free() existed, and been doing this?

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-05 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-05 11:23 [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-05 13:04 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-09-05 13:26   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-05 13:48     ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-09-05 19:58       ` Andrew Morton
2018-09-05 21:35         ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2018-09-05 22:00           ` Andrew Morton
2018-09-05 23:07             ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-09-05 23:51               ` Mike Kravetz
2018-09-06  4:03                 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-06 11:19                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-06  3:58           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-06  3:54         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-06  4:00       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).