lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: Block reservation for hugetlbfs
David Gibson wrote:
> These days, hugepages are demand-allocated at first fault time.
> There's a somewhat dubious (and racy) heuristic when making a new
> mmap() to check if there are enough available hugepages to fully
> satisfy that mapping.
>
> A particularly obvious case where the heuristic breaks down is where a
> process maps its hugepages not as a single chunk, but as a bunch of
> individually mmap()ed (or shmat()ed) blocks without touching and
> instantiating the blocks in between allocations. In this case the
> size of each block is compared against the total number of available
> hugepages. It's thus easy for the process to become overcommitted,
> because each block mapping will succeed, although the total number of
> hugepages required by all blocks exceeds the number available. In
> particular, this defeats such a program which will detect a mapping
> failure and adjust its hugepage usage downward accordingly.
>
> The patch below is a draft attempt to address this problem, by
> strictly reserving a number of physical hugepages for hugepages inodes
> which have been mapped, but not instatiated. MAP_SHARED mappings are
> thus "safe" - they will fail on mmap(), not later with a SIGBUS.
> MAP_PRIVATE mappings can still SIGBUS.
>
> This patch appears to address the problem at hand - it allows DB2 to
> start correctly, for instance, which previously suffered the failure
> described above. I'm almost certain I'm missing some locking or other
> synchronization - I am entirely bewildered as to what I need to hold
> to safely update i_blocks as below. Corrections for my ignorance
> solicited...
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>
>

This introduces
tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock

And we already have
hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock

So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock
against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right?

From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not
introduce something like this.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-21 08:53    [W:0.046 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site