From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEFE6B2FAE for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id q29-v6so3610735edd.0 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 05:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a29-v6si4241079edd.340.2018.08.24.05.33.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Aug 2018 05:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:33:41 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers Message-ID: <20180824123341.GN29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180716115058.5559-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <8cbfb09f-0c5a-8d43-1f5e-f3ff7612e289@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180824113248.GH29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824115226.GK29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824120339.GL29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Tetsuo Handa , Joonas Lahtinen , Sudeep Dutt , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli , "David (ChunMing) Zhou" , Dimitri Sivanich , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie , Doug Ledford , David Rientjes , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Jani Nikula , Leon Romanovsky , Rodrigo Vivi , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Mike Marciniszyn , Dennis Dalessandro , LKML , Ashutosh Dixit , Alex Deucher , Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , Felix Kuehling On Fri 24-08-18 14:18:44, Christian Konig wrote: > Am 24.08.2018 um 14:03 schrieb Michal Hocko: > > On Fri 24-08-18 13:57:52, Christian Konig wrote: > > > Am 24.08.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Michal Hocko: > > > > On Fri 24-08-18 13:43:16, Christian Konig wrote: > > [...] > > > > > That won't work like this there might be multiple > > > > > invalidate_range_start()/invalidate_range_end() pairs open at the same time. > > > > > E.g. the lock might be taken recursively and that is illegal for a > > > > > rw_semaphore. > > > > I am not sure I follow. Are you saying that one invalidate_range might > > > > trigger another one from the same path? > > > No, but what can happen is: > > > > > > invalidate_range_start(A,B); > > > invalidate_range_start(C,D); > > > ... > > > invalidate_range_end(C,D); > > > invalidate_range_end(A,B); > > > > > > Grabbing the read lock twice would be illegal in this case. > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. What is the context the two are > > called from? > > I don't have the slightest idea. > > > Can you give me an example. I simply do not see it in the > > code, mostly because I am not familiar with it. > > I'm neither. > > We stumbled over that by pure observation and after discussing the problem > with Jerome came up with this solution. > > No idea where exactly that case comes from, but I can confirm that it indeed > happens. Thiking about it some more, I can imagine that a notifier callback which performs an allocation might trigger a memory reclaim and that in turn might trigger a notifier to be invoked and recurse. But notifier shouldn't really allocate memory. They are called from deep MM code paths and this would be extremely deadlock prone. Maybe Jerome can come up some more realistic scenario. If not then I would propose to simplify the locking here. We have lockdep to catch self deadlocks and it is always better to handle a specific issue rather than having a code without a clear indication how it can recurse. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs