Re: [PATCH] mm/shmem: Do not wait for lock_page() in shmem_unused_huge_shrink()

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:58:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-03-18 15:25:08, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:13:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 16-03-18 13:59:08, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > @@ -498,31 +498,42 @@ static unsigned long shmem_unused_huge_shrink(struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo,
> > > >  			continue;
> > > >  		}
> > > >  
> > > > -		page = find_lock_page(inode->i_mapping,
> > > > +		page = find_get_page(inode->i_mapping,
> > > >  				(inode->i_size & HPAGE_PMD_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > >  		if (!page)
> > > >  			goto drop;
> > > >  
> > > > +		/* No huge page at the end of the file: nothing to split */
> > > >  		if (!PageTransHuge(page)) {
> > > > -			unlock_page(page);
> > > >  			put_page(page);
> > > >  			goto drop;
> > > >  		}
> > > >  
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * Leave the inode on the list if we failed to lock
> > > > +		 * the page at this time.
> > > > +		 *
> > > > +		 * Waiting for the lock may lead to deadlock in the
> > > > +		 * reclaim path.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (!trylock_page(page)) {
> > > > +			put_page(page);
> > > > +			goto leave;
> > > > +		}
> > > 
> > > Can somebody split the huge page after the PageTransHuge check and
> > > before we lock it?
> > 
> > Nope. Pin on the page is enough to prevent split.
> 
> Good, I thought so but wasn't really 100% sure. Thanks for the
> clarification and feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Thanks.

> Maybe you should stick
> Reported-by: Eric Wheeler <linux-mm@lists.ewheeler.net>
> and point to http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LRH.2.11.1801242349220.30642@mail.ewheeler.net
> because that smells like a bug that this patch would be fixing.

Good point.

Andrew, do you want me repost with tags integrated?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov