[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001141254460.84781@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:57:22 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
vdavydov.dev@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer
list
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> split_huge_page_to_list() has page lock taken.
>
> free_transhuge_page() is in the free path and doesn't susceptible to the
> race.
>
> deferred_split_scan() is trickier. list_move() should be safe against
> list_empty() as it will not produce false-positive list_empty().
> list_del_init() *should* (correct me if I'm wrong) be safe because the page
> is freeing and memcg will not touch the page anymore.
>
> deferred_split_huge_page() is a problematic one. It called from
> page_remove_rmap() path witch does require page lock. I don't see any
> obvious way to exclude race with mem_cgroup_move_account() here.
> Anybody else?
>
> Wei, could you rewrite the commit message with deferred_split_huge_page()
> as a race source instead of split_huge_page_to_list()?
>
I think describing the race in terms of deferred_split_huge_page() makes
the most sense and I'd prefer a cc to stable for 5.4+. Even getting the
split_queue_len, which is unsigned long, to underflow because of a
list_empty(page_deferred_list()) check that is no longer accurate after
the lock is taken would be a significant issue for shrinkers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists