[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180905125846.eb0a9ed907b293c1b4c23c23@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:58:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 06:48:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > I didn't. The reason I looked at current patch is to enable the usage of
> > put_page() from irq context. We do allow that for non hugetlb pages. So was
> > not sure adding that additional restriction for hugetlb
> > is really needed. Further the conversion to irqsave/irqrestore was
> > straightforward.
>
> straightforward, sure. but is it the right thing to do? do we want to
> be able to put_page() a hugetlb page from hardirq context?
Calling put_page() against a huge page from hardirq seems like the
right thing to do - even if it's rare now, it will presumably become
more common as the hugepage virus spreads further across the kernel.
And the present asymmetry is quite a wart.
That being said, arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_iommu.c:mm_iommu_free() is
the only known site which does this (yes?) so perhaps we could put some
stopgap workaround into that site and add a runtime warning into the
put_page() code somewhere to detect puttage of huge pages from hardirq
and softirq contexts.
And attention will need to be paid to -stable backporting. How long
has mm_iommu_free() existed, and been doing this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists