[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGGGfBE0JVrxyFsW@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:49:16 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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: [External] [PATCH 7/8] hugetlb: make free_huge_page irq safe
On Sat 27-03-21 15:06:36, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:29 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Commit c77c0a8ac4c5 ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in
> > non-task context") was added to address the issue of free_huge_page
> > being called from irq context. That commit hands off free_huge_page
> > processing to a workqueue if !in_task. However, as seen in [1] this
> > does not cover all cases. Instead, make the locks taken in the
> > free_huge_page irq safe.
> >
> > This patch does the following:
> > - Make hugetlb_lock irq safe. This is mostly a simple process of
> > changing spin_*lock calls to spin_*lock_irq* calls.
> > - Make subpool lock irq safe in a similar manner.
> > - Revert the !in_task check and workqueue handoff.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/000000000000f1c03b05bc43aadc@google.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
>
> The changes are straightforward.
>
> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>
> Since this patchset aims to fix a real word issue. Should we add a Fixes
> tag?
Do we know since when it is possible to use hugetlb in the networking
context? Maybe this is possible since ever but I am wondering why the
lockdep started complaining only now. Maybe just fuzzing finally started
using this setup which nobody does normally.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists