[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db50d82c-07f1-6a87-6960-7810c54f8093@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:11:02 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
osalvador@...e.de, vbabka@...e.cz, william.lam@...edance.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when
isolating hugetlb pages
On 3/14/2023 1:08 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 03/13/23 18:37, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> When trying to isolate a migratable pageblock, it can contain several
>> normal pages or several hugetlb pages (e.g. CONT-PTE 64K hugetlb on arm64)
>> in a pageblock. That means we may hold the lru lock of a normal page to
>> continue to isolate the next hugetlb page by isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page()
>> in the same migratable pageblock.
>>
>> However in the isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(), it may allocate a new hugetlb
>> page and dissolve the old one by alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio() if the
>> hugetlb's refcount is zero. That means we can still enter the direct compaction
>> path to allocate a new hugetlb page under the current lru lock, which
>> may cause possible deadlock.
>>
>> To avoid this possible deadlock, we should release the lru lock when trying
>> to isolate a hugetbl page. Moreover it does not make sense to take the lru
>> lock to isolate a hugetlb, which is not in the lru list.
>>
>> Fixes: 369fa227c219 ("mm: make alloc_contig_range handle free hugetlb pages")
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> mm/compaction.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>> index c9d9ad958e2a..ac8ff152421a 100644
>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>
> Thanks!
>
> I suspect holding the lru lock when calling isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page was
> not considered. However, I wonder if this can really happen in practice?
>
> Before the code below, there is this:
>
> /*
> * Periodically drop the lock (if held) regardless of its
> * contention, to give chance to IRQs. Abort completely if
> * a fatal signal is pending.
> */
> if (!(low_pfn % COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
> if (locked) {
> unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked, flags);
> locked = NULL;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> It would seem that the pfn of a hugetlb page would always be a multiple of
> COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX so we would drop the lock. However, I am not sure if
> that is ALWAYS true and would prefer something like the code you suggested.
Well, this is not always true, suppose the CONT-PTE hugetlb on ARM arch,
which contains 16 contiguous normal pages.
> Did you actually see this deadlock in practice?
I did not see this issue in practice until now, but I think it can be
triggered from code inspection if trying to isolate a CONT-PTE hugetlb.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists