[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:11 -0700 Mike Kravetz <> wrote:
> > > 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.
> Me too. If we're going to do this, surely we should make hugepages
> behave in the same fashion as PAGE_SIZE pages.

But these aren't vanilla hugepages, they're specifically hugetlbfs pages.
I don't believe there's any problem with calling put_page() on a normally
allocated huge page or THP.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-06 01:08    [W:0.104 / U:9.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site