[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 09/05/2018 06:34 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:53:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
> How do you go from "can be taken in softirq context" problem report to
> "must disable hard interrupts" solution? Please explain why spin_lock_bh()
> is not a sufficient fix.
>> swapper/68/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
>> 0000000052a030a7 (hugetlb_lock){+.?.}, at: free_huge_page+0x9c/0x340
>> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>> lock_acquire+0xd4/0x230
>> _raw_spin_lock+0x44/0x70
>> set_max_huge_pages+0x4c/0x360
>> hugetlb_sysctl_handler_common+0x108/0x160
>> proc_sys_call_handler+0x134/0x190
>> __vfs_write+0x3c/0x1f0
>> vfs_write+0xd8/0x220
> Also, this only seems to trigger here. Is it possible we _already_
> have softirqs disabled through every other code path, and it's just this
> one sysctl handler that needs to disable softirqs? Rather than every
> lock access?

Are you asking whether I looked at moving that put_page to a worker
thread? 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

Now with respect to making sure we don't have irq already disabled in
those code paths, I did check that. But let me know if you find anything
I missed.

> I'm not seeing any analysis in this patch description, just a kneejerk
> "lockdep complained, must disable interrupts".


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-05 15:26    [W:0.113 / U:11.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site