linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	osalvador@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz, william.lam@bytedance.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when isolating hugetlb pages
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:08:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230313170838.GA3044@monkey> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a24a86fbae09711e61dc4424aa7aebff718e9995.1678703534.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>

On 03/13/23 18:37, Baolin Wang wrote:
> When trying to isolate a migratable pageblock, it can contain several
> normal pages or several hugetlb pages (e.g. CONT-PTE 64K hugetlb on arm64)
> in a pageblock. That means we may hold the lru lock of a normal page to
> continue to isolate the next hugetlb page by isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page()
> in the same migratable pageblock.
> 
> However in the isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(), it may allocate a new hugetlb
> page and dissolve the old one by alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio() if the
> hugetlb's refcount is zero. That means we can still enter the direct compaction
> path to allocate a new hugetlb page under the current lru lock, which
> may cause possible deadlock.
> 
> To avoid this possible deadlock, we should release the lru lock when trying
> to isolate a hugetbl page. Moreover it does not make sense to take the lru
> lock to isolate a hugetlb, which is not in the lru list.
> 
> Fixes: 369fa227c219 ("mm: make alloc_contig_range handle free hugetlb pages")
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  mm/compaction.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index c9d9ad958e2a..ac8ff152421a 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c

Thanks!

I suspect holding the lru lock when calling isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page was
not considered.  However, I wonder if this can really happen in practice?

Before the code below, there is this:

		/*
		 * Periodically drop the lock (if held) regardless of its
		 * contention, to give chance to IRQs. Abort completely if
		 * a fatal signal is pending.
		 */
		if (!(low_pfn % COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
			if (locked) {
				unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked, flags);
				locked = NULL;
			}
			...
		}

It would seem that the pfn of a hugetlb page would always be a multiple of
COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX so we would drop the lock.  However, I am not sure if
that is ALWAYS true and would prefer something like the code you suggested.

Did you actually see this deadlock in practice?
-- 
Mike Kravetz

> @@ -893,6 +893,11 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
>  		}
>  
>  		if (PageHuge(page) && cc->alloc_contig) {
> +			if (locked) {
> +				unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked, flags);
> +				locked = NULL;
> +			}
> +
>  			ret = isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(page, &cc->migratepages);
>  
>  			/*
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-13 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-13 10:37 [PATCH 1/2] mm: compaction: consider the number of scanning compound pages in isolate fail path Baolin Wang
2023-03-13 10:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when isolating hugetlb pages Baolin Wang
2023-03-13 17:08   ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2023-03-13 19:31     ` Andrew Morton
2023-03-14  4:11     ` Baolin Wang
2023-03-14 17:27       ` Mike Kravetz
2023-03-15  1:27         ` Baolin Wang
2023-03-15 17:17   ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-03-15 15:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: compaction: consider the number of scanning compound pages in isolate fail path Vlastimil Babka
2023-03-16  9:53   ` Baolin Wang

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=20230313170838.GA3044@monkey \
    --to=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=william.lam@bytedance.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