[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704150106.GA11168@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 08:01:06 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 2/2] mm/memory-hotplug: Switch locking to a percpu
rwsem
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>Andrey reported a potential deadlock with the memory hotplug lock and the
>cpu hotplug lock.
>
>The reason is that memory hotplug takes the memory hotplug lock and then
>calls stop_machine() which calls get_online_cpus(). That's the reverse lock
>order to get_online_cpus(); get_online_mems(); in mm/slub_common.c
>
>The problem has been there forever. The reason why this was never reported
>is that the cpu hotplug locking had this homebrewn recursive reader writer
>semaphore construct which due to the recursion evaded the full lock dep
>coverage. The memory hotplug code copied that construct verbatim and
>therefor has similar issues.
>
>Three steps to fix this:
>
>1) Convert the memory hotplug locking to a per cpu rwsem so the potential
> issues get reported proper by lockdep.
I particularly like how the mem hotplug is well suited for pcpu-rwsem.
As a side effect you end up optimizing get/put_online_mems() at the cost
of more overhead for the actual hotplug operation, which is rare and of less
performance importance.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists