From: Mike Kravetz <email@example.com>
To: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 09/05/2018 12:58 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 06:48:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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, 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.
> And attention will need to be paid to -stable backporting. How long
> has mm_iommu_free() existed, and been doing this?
next prev parent 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
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).