[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ad1d1c1-ab28-38fd-14e1-9165345e8088@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:53:44 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/8] hugetlb: add update_and_free_page_no_sleep for
irq context
On 3/24/21 1:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-03-21 11:51:04, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 3/22/21 11:10 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:42:23AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> Cc: Roman, Christoph
>>>>
>>>> On 3/22/21 1:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:08PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>>> The locks acquired in free_huge_page are irq safe. However, in certain
>>>>>> circumstances the routine update_and_free_page could sleep. Since
>>>>>> free_huge_page can be called from any context, it can not sleep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use a waitqueue to defer freeing of pages if the operation may sleep. A
>>>>>> new routine update_and_free_page_no_sleep provides this functionality
>>>>>> and is only called from free_huge_page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that any 'pages' sent to the workqueue for deferred freeing have
>>>>>> already been removed from the hugetlb subsystem. What is actually
>>>>>> deferred is returning those base pages to the low level allocator.
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe I'm stupid, but why do you need that work in hugetlb? Afaict it
>>>>> should be in cma_release().
>>>>
>>>> My thinking (which could be totally wrong) is that cma_release makes no
>>>> claims about calling context. From the code, it is pretty clear that it
>>>> can only be called from task context with no locks held. Although,
>>>> there could be code incorrectly calling it today hugetlb does. Since
>>>> hugetlb is the only code with this new requirement, it should do the
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> Wait!!! That made me remember something.
>>>> Roman had code to create a non-blocking version of cma_release().
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20201022225308.2927890-1-guro@fb.com/
>>>>
>>>> There were no objections, and Christoph even thought there may be
>>>> problems with callers of dma_free_contiguous.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, we should just move forward with Roman's patches to create
>>>> cma_release_nowait() and avoid this workqueue stuff?
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me. If it's the preferred path, I can rebase and resend
>>> those patches (they been carried for some time by Zi Yan for his 1GB THP work,
>>> but they are completely independent).
>>
>> Thanks Roman,
>>
>> Yes, this is the preferred path. If there is a non blocking version of
>> cma_release, then it makes fixup of hugetlb put_page path much easier.
>
> I do not object to the plan I just want to point out that the sparse
> vmemmap for hugetlb pages will need to recognize sleep/nosleep variants
> of the freeing path as well to handle its vmemmap repopulate games.
>
Yes,
I also commented elsewhere that we will likely want to do the
drop/reacquire lock for each page in the looping page free routines when
adding the vmemmap freeing support.
Unless someone thinks otherwise, I still think it is better to first fix
the hugetlb put_page/free_huge_page path with this series. Then move on
to the free vmemmap series.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists