[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:22:55 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue
On 12/12/19 11:04 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> There have been deadlock reports[1, 2] where put_page is called
> from softirq context and this causes trouble with the hugetlb_lock,
> as well as potentially the subpool lock.
>
> For such an unlikely scenario, lets not add irq dancing overhead
> to the lock+unlock operations, which could incur in expensive
> instruction dependencies, particularly when considering hard-irq
> safety. For example PUSHF+POPF on x86.
>
> Instead, just use a workqueue and do the free_huge_page() in regular
> task context.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191211194615.18502-1-longman@redhat.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180905112341.21355-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com/
>
> Reported-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Reported-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Thank you Davidlohr.
The patch does seem fairly simple and straight forward. I need to brush up
on my workqueue knowledge to provide a full review.
Longman,
Do you have a test to reproduce the issue? If so, can you try running with
this patch.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists