lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hugetlb: select PREEMPT_COUNT if HUGETLB_PAGE for in_atomic use
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:36:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:09:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Sorry for being dense but I do not follow. You have provided the
> > following example
> > spin_lock(&A);
> > <IRQ>
> > spin_lock(&A);
> >
> > if A == hugetlb_lock then we should never reenter with
> > free_huge_page
>
> What I'm saying is that if irq_disabled(), the that interrupt cannot
> happen, so the second spin_lock cannot happen, so the deadlock cannot
> happen.
>
> So: '!irqs_disabled() && in_atomic()' is sufficient to avoid the IRQ
> recursion deadlock.
>
> Also, Linus hates constructs like this:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wht7kAeyR5xEW2ORj7m0hibVxZ3t+2ie8vNHLQfdbN2_g@mail.gmail.com

To be fair, later in that same thread Linus states that his main concern
is not core code, but rather driver code:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjsMycgMHJrCmeetR3r+K5bpSRtmVWfd8iaoQCYd_VYAg@mail.gmail.com/

Nevertheless, if the job can be done reasonably without checking the
preemption/interrupt state, why not? And Mike's patch is still useful
for people hitting this bug.

Thanx, Paul

> > From the code simplicity POV (and hugetlb has grown a lot of complexity)
> > it would be really easiest to make sure __free_huge_page to be called
> > from a non-atomic process context. There are few ways to do that
> > - defer each call to a WQ - user visible which sucks
> > - defer from atomic or otherwise non-sleeping contextx - requires
> > reliable in_atomic AFAICS
> > - defer sleeping operations - makes the code flow more complex and it
> > would be again user visible in some cases.
> >
> > So I would say we are in "pick your own poison" kind of situation.
>
> Just to be clear:
>
> NAK on this patch and any and all ductape crap. Fix it properly, make
> hugetlb_lock, spool->lock IRQ-safe, move the workqueue into the CMA
> thing.
>
> The code really doesn't look _that_ complicated.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-11 18:53    [W:0.081 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site