linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, mel@csn.ul.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] allocate structures for reservation tracking in hugetlbfs outside of spinlocks
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:16:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080808101646.GJ14829@brain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080807143824.8e0803da.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:38:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu,  7 Aug 2008 21:28:23 +0100
> Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> > [Andrew, this fixes a problem in the private reservations stack, shown up
> > by some testing done by Gerald on s390 with PREEMPT.  It fixes an attempt
> > at allocation while holding locks.  This should be merged up to mainline
> > as a bug fix to those patches.]
> > 
> > In the normal case, hugetlbfs reserves hugepages at map time so that the
> > pages exist for future faults.  A struct file_region is used to track
> > when reservations have been consumed and where.  These file_regions
> > are allocated as necessary with kmalloc() which can sleep with the
> > mm->page_table_lock held.  This is wrong and triggers may-sleep warning
> > when PREEMPT is enabled.
> > 
> > Updates to the underlying file_region are done in two phases.  The first
> > phase prepares the region for the change, allocating any necessary memory,
> > without actually making the change.  The second phase actually commits
> > the change.  This patch makes use of this by checking the reservations
> > before the page_table_lock is taken; triggering any necessary allocations.
> > This may then be safely repeated within the locks without any allocations
> > being required.
> > 
> > Credit to Mel Gorman for diagnosing this failure and initial versions of
> > the patch.
> > 
> 
> After applying the patch:
> 
> : int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> : 			unsigned long address, int write_access)
> : {
> : 	pte_t *ptep;
> : 	pte_t entry;
> : 	int ret;
> : 	struct page *pagecache_page = NULL;
> : 	static DEFINE_MUTEX(hugetlb_instantiation_mutex);
> : 	struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
> : 
> : 	ptep = huge_pte_alloc(mm, address, huge_page_size(h));
> : 	if (!ptep)
> : 		return VM_FAULT_OOM;
> : 
> : 	/*
> : 	 * Serialize hugepage allocation and instantiation, so that we don't
> : 	 * get spurious allocation failures if two CPUs race to instantiate
> : 	 * the same page in the page cache.
> : 	 */
> : 	mutex_lock(&hugetlb_instantiation_mutex);
> : 	entry = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
> : 	if (huge_pte_none(entry)) {
> : 		ret = hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, address, ptep, write_access);
> : 		mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_instantiation_mutex);
> : 		return ret;
> : 	}
> : 
> : 	ret = 0;
> : 
> : 	/*
> : 	 * If we are going to COW the mapping later, we examine the pending
> : 	 * reservations for this page now. This will ensure that any
> : 	 * allocations necessary to record that reservation occur outside the
> : 	 * spinlock. For private mappings, we also lookup the pagecache
> : 	 * page now as it is used to determine if a reservation has been
> : 	 * consumed.
> : 	 */
> : 	if (write_access && !pte_write(entry)) {
> : 		vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, address);
> : 
> : 		if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
> : 			pagecache_page = hugetlbfs_pagecache_page(h,
> : 								vma, address);
> : 	}
> 
> There's a seeming race window here, where a new page can get
> instantiated.  But down-read(mmap_sem) plus hugetlb_instantiation_mutex
> prevents that, yes?

Although that is true, I would prefer to not think of the
instantiation_mutex as protection for this, its primary concern is
serialisation.  I believe that the combination of down_read(mmap_sem),
the page lock, and perversely the page_table_lock protect this.

At this point we know that the PTE was not pte_none else we would
have branched to no_page.  No mapping operations can be occuring as
we have down_read(mmap_sem).  Any truncates racing with us first clear
the PTEs and then the pagecache references.  Should we pick up a stale
pagecache reference, we will detect it when we recheck the PTE under
the page_table_lock; this will also detect any racing instantiations.

Obviously we have the instantiation_mutex, and the locking rules for
the regions need it.  But I believe we are safe against this race even
without the instantiation_mutex.

> : 	spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> : 	/* Check for a racing update before calling hugetlb_cow */
> : 	if (likely(pte_same(entry, huge_ptep_get(ptep))))
> : 		if (write_access && !pte_write(entry))
> : 			ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep, entry,
> : 							pagecache_page);
> : 	spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> : 
> : 	if (pagecache_page) {
> : 		unlock_page(pagecache_page);
> : 		put_page(pagecache_page);
> : 	}
> : 
> : 	mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_instantiation_mutex);
> : 
> : 	return ret;
> : }
> : 
> : 

-apw

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-08-08 10:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-06 14:43 [BUG] hugetlb: sleeping function called from invalid context Gerald Schaefer
2008-08-06 19:03 ` [PATCH 1/1] allocate structures for reservation tracking in hugetlbfs outside of spinlocks Andy Whitcroft
2008-08-07 11:35   ` Gerald Schaefer
2008-08-07 20:28 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-08-07 21:38   ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08  8:33     ` Mel Gorman
2008-08-08 10:16     ` Andy Whitcroft [this message]
2008-08-08 11:10     ` [PATCH 1/1] allocate structures for reservation tracking in hugetlbfs outside of spinlocks v2 Andy Whitcroft
2008-08-08 12:57       ` Gerald Schaefer
2008-08-11 17:58     ` Andy Whitcroft

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080808101646.GJ14829@brain \
    --to=apw@shadowen.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox