lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
On 09/05/2018 12:58 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 06:48:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.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.
>>
>> 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?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-05 23:37    [W:0.086 / U:4.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site