[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f64569f-b8ce-54f8-33d9-0e67216bb54c@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:13:14 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory.c: split should clone page flags before
unfreezing pageref
On 11.02.2018 14:07, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 01:35:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> THP split makes non-atomic change of tail page flags. This is almost ok
>> because tail pages are locked and isolated but this breaks recent changes
>> in page locking: non-atomic operation could clear bit PG_waiters.
>>
>> As a result concurrent sequence get_page_unless_zero() -> lock_page()
>> might block forever. Especially if this page was truncated later.
>>
>> Fix is trivial: clone flags before unfreezing page reference counter.
>>
>> This race exists since commit 62906027091f ("mm: add PageWaiters indicating
>> tasks are waiting for a page bit") while unsave unfreeze itself was added
>> in commit 8df651c7059e ("thp: cleanup split_huge_page()").
>
> Hm. Don't we have to have barrier between setting flags and updating
> the refcounter in this case? Atomics don't generally have this semantics,
> so you can see new refcount before new flags even after the change.
>
Ok.
I see another problem here - clear_compound_head() is placed after unfreeze.
This opens race window with get/put_page after speculative get page.
I think successful get_page_unless_zero() must stabilize compound_head() for tails as well as for heads.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists