[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue
On 12/16/19 8:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-12-19 15:52:20, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 12/12/19 2:22 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 12/12/19 11:04 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>> There have been deadlock reports[1, 2] where put_page is called
>>>> from softirq context and this causes trouble with the hugetlb_lock,
>>>> as well as potentially the subpool lock.
>>>> For such an unlikely scenario, lets not add irq dancing overhead
>>>> to the lock+unlock operations, which could incur in expensive
>>>> instruction dependencies, particularly when considering hard-irq
>>>> safety. For example PUSHF+POPF on x86.
>>>> Instead, just use a workqueue and do the free_huge_page() in regular
>>>> task context.
>>>> [1]
>>>> [2]
>>>> Reported-by: Waiman Long <>
>>>> Reported-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <>
>>> Thank you Davidlohr.
>>> The patch does seem fairly simple and straight forward. I need to brush up
>>> on my workqueue knowledge to provide a full review.
>>> Longman,
>>> Do you have a test to reproduce the issue? If so, can you try running with
>>> this patch.
>> Yes, I do have a test that can reproduce the issue. I will run it with
>> the patch and report the status tomorrow.
> Can you extract guts of the testcase and integrate them into hugetlb
> test suite?

The test case that I used is the Red Hat internal "Fork vs. fast GUP
race test" written by Jarod Wilson. I would have to ask him if he is OK
with that.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-16 16:39    [W:0.113 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site