[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21a92649-bb9f-b024-e52b-4ce9355f973b@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:44:53 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue
On 12/16/19 10:38 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 12/16/19 8:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 12-12-19 15:52:20, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 12/12/19 2:22 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, I do have a test that can reproduce the issue. I will run it with
>>> the patch and report the status tomorrow.
>> Can you extract guts of the testcase and integrate them into hugetlb
>> test suite?
BTW, what hugetlb test suite are you talking about?
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists