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>
next prev 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