linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] mm: cma: introduce cma_release

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YFxkXEXMpcMM/KWd@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:22:20 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mm: cma: introduce cma_release_nowait()

On Thu 25-03-21 10:56:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.03.21 01:28, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > 
> > cma_release() has to lock the cma_lock mutex to clear the cma bitmap.
> > It makes it a blocking function, which complicates its usage from
> > non-blocking contexts. For instance, hugetlbfs code is temporarily
> > dropping the hugetlb_lock spinlock to call cma_release().
> > 
> > This patch introduces a non-blocking cma_release_nowait(), which
> > postpones the cma bitmap clearance. It's done later from a work
> > context. The first page in the cma allocation is used to store
> > the work struct. Because CMA allocations and de-allocations are
> > usually not that frequent, a single global workqueue is used.
> > 
> > To make sure that subsequent cma_alloc() call will pass, cma_alloc()
> > flushes the cma_release_wq workqueue. To avoid a performance
> > regression in the case when only cma_release() is used, gate it
> > by a per-cma area flag, which is set by the first call
> > of cma_release_nowait().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > [mike.kravetz@...cle.com: rebased to v5.12-rc3-mmotm-2021-03-17-22-24]
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> > ---
> 
> 
> 1. Is there a real reason this is a mutex and not a spin lock? It seems to
> only protect the bitmap. Are bitmaps that huge that we spend a significant
> amount of time in there?

Good question. Looking at the code it doesn't seem that there is any
blockable operation or any heavy lifting done under the lock.
7ee793a62fa8 ("cma: Remove potential deadlock situation") has introduced
the lock and there was a simple bitmat protection back then. I suspect
the patch just followed the cma_mutex lead and used the same type of the
lock. cma_mutex used to protect alloc_contig_range which is sleepable.

This all suggests that there is no real reason to use a sleepable lock
at all and we do not need all this heavy lifting.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs