lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ipc/sem: do not sleep with a spin lock held
From
Date
On 22.12.2021 20:38, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 22.12.2021 20:06, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> Hi Vasily,
>>
>> On 12/22/21 16:50, Vasily Averin wrote:
>>> On 22.12.2021 18:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
>>>> On 22.12.2021 14:45, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>>>> Hi Minghao,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/22/21 09:10, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can't call kvfree() with a spin lock held, so defer it.
>>>> I'm sorry, but I do not understand why exactly we cannot use kvfree?
>>>> Could you explain it in more details?
>>> Got it,
>>> there is cond_resched() called in __vfree() -> __vunmap()
>>>
>>> However I'm still not sure that in_interrupt() is used correctly here.
>>
>> I see three different topics:
>>
>> - is the current code violating the API? I think yes, thus there is a bug that needs to be fixed.
>
> I'm agree. Found issue is a bug and it should be fixed ASAP,
> I'm sorry for a mistake in my patch.
>
>> - Where is __vunmap() sleeping? Would it be possible to make __vunmap() safe to be called when owning a spinlock?
>
> I think it is possible, and we should do it to prevent similar incidents in future.
> vfree() should check preempt count to detect this situation (i.e. execution under taken spinlock)
> generate WARN_ON and then call __vfree_deferred() to avoid sleep.
>
>> - should kvfree() use vfree() [i.e. unsafe when owning a spinlock] or vfree_atomic [i.e. a bit slower, but safe]
>
> I think it's better to change vfree.

I mean something like this:

--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -2674,7 +2674,7 @@ void vfree_atomic(const void *addr)

static void __vfree(const void *addr)
{
- if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
+ if (unlikely(in_atomic())) <<<< VvS: do not sleep in atomic ...
__vfree_deferred(addr);
else
__vunmap(addr, 1);
@@ -2703,7 +2703,7 @@ void vfree(const void *addr)

kmemleak_free(addr);

- might_sleep_if(!in_interrupt());
+ might_sleep_if(in_task()); <<<<< VvS: ... but generate warning if vfree was called
<<<<< in task context with taken spin_lock or spin_lock_bh

if (!addr)
return;

>> As we did quite many s/kfree/kvfree/ changes, perhaps just switching to vfree_atomic() is the best solution.
>>
>> @Andrew: What would you prefer?
>>
>> In addition, if we do not use vfree_atomic(): Then I would propose to copy the might_sleep_if() from vfree() into kvfree()
> I think it does not help, as far as I understand we are in task context, just under taken spinlock.
>
> Thank you,
> vasily Averin
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-22 20:09    [W:0.049 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site