[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zn0Yc8Zd3gQDnDll@tiehlicka>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:44:51 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: alexjlzheng@...il.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, brauner@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
oleg@...hat.com, tandersen@...flix.com, willy@...radead.org,
mjguzik@...il.com, alexjlzheng@...cent.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: optimize the redundant loop of
mm_update_next_owner()
On Thu 20-06-24 23:27:45, alexjlzheng@...il.com wrote:
> From: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...cent.com>
>
> When mm_update_next_owner() is racing with swapoff (try_to_unuse()) or /proc or
> ptrace or page migration (get_task_mm()), it is impossible to find an
> appropriate task_struct in the loop whose mm_struct is the same as the target
> mm_struct.
>
> If the above race condition is combined with the stress-ng-zombie and
> stress-ng-dup tests, such a long loop can easily cause a Hard Lockup in
> write_lock_irq() for tasklist_lock.
>
> Recognize this situation in advance and exit early.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...cent.com>
Even if this is not really a full fix it is a useful stop gap to catch
at least some cases.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
>
> V2: Fix mm_update_owner_next() to mm_update_next_owner() in comment
> ---
> kernel/exit.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index f95a2c1338a8..81fcee45d630 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -484,6 +484,8 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> * Search through everything else, we should not get here often.
> */
> for_each_process(g) {
> + if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1)
> + break;
> if (g->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> continue;
> for_each_thread(g, c) {
> --
> 2.39.3
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists