Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:46:26 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: PATCH? introduce get_compound_page (Was: process 'stuck' at exit) |
| |
On 12/16, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:36:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > So it seems that put_compound_tail() should also do get/put(head) like > > put_compound_page() does, and this probably means we should factor out > > the common code somehow. > > > > Yes it was supposed to do the get_page_unless_zero before the > compound_lock.
OK,
> > OTOH, I can't really understand > > > > if (likely(page != page_head && get_page_unless_zero(page_head))) > > > > in __get_page_tail() and put_compound_page(). > > > > First of all, is it really possible that page == compound_trans_head(page)? > > ... > > If PG_tail gets cleared compound_trans_head returns "page".
Damn, indeed, thanks.
> > And compound_lock_irqsave() looks racy even after get_page_unless_zero(). > > > > For example, suppose that page_head was already freed and then re-allocated > > as (say) alloc_pages(__GFP_COMP, 1). get_page_unless_zero() can succeed right > > after prep_new_page() does set_page_refcounted(). Now, can't compound_lock() > > race with the non-atomic prep_compound_page()->__SetPageHead() ? > > Yes. We need to change to: > > if (order && (gfp_flags & __GFP_COMP)) > prep_compound_page(page, order); > smp_wmb(); > /* as the compound_lock can be taken after it's refcounted */ > set_page_refcounted(page); > > __SetPageHead uses bts asm insn so literally only a "lock" prefix is > missing in a assembly instruction. So the race window is incredibly > small, but it must be fixed indeed. This also puts set_page_refcounted > as the last action of buffered_rmqueue so there shouldn't be any other > issues like this left in the page allocation code. > > Can you reorder set_page_refcount in your v2?
OK. I'll try to make something on Wednesday.
> > Finally. basepage_index(page) after put_page(page) in get_futex_key() looks > > confusing imho. I think this is correct, we already checked PageAnon() so it > > can't be a thp page. But probably this needs a comment and __basepage_index() > > should do BUG_ON(!PageHuge()). > > This looks a bug if you apply the patches to add THP in pagecache, and > BUG_ON(!PageHuge) would also break THP in pagecache later (though > safer than silently broken like now). > > It'd safer to read the basepage_index in a local variable just before > doing the put_compund_tail but I agree it's not going to make a > difference right now.
Yes, so lets discuss (and perhaps change) this later/separately.
Andrea, thanks again for your help.
Oleg.
| |