From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Defer freeing of huge pages if in non-task context
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:20:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d7c31f9-371d-9a46-96c4-c37dd761c28d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <530afa00-4da9-61cd-d1f3-66803bcd30e6@oracle.com>
On 12/16/19 5:40 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 12/16/19 10:27 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The following lockdep splat was observed when a certain hugetlbfs test
>> was run:
> <snip>
>> This patch implements the deferred freeing by adding a
>> free_hpage_workfn() work function to do the actual freeing. The
>> free_huge_page() call in a non-task context saves the page to be freed
>> in the hpage_freelist linked list in a lockless manner.
>>
>> The generic workqueue is used to process the work, but a dedicated
>> workqueue can be used instead if it is desirable to have the huge page
>> freed ASAP.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> +/*
>> + * As free_huge_page() can be called from a non-task context, we have
>> + * to defer the actual freeing in a workqueue to prevent potential
>> + * hugetlb_lock deadlock.
>> + *
>> + * free_hpage_workfn() locklessly retrieves the linked list of pages to
>> + * be freed and frees them one-by-one. As the page->mapping pointer is
>> + * going to be cleared in __free_huge_page() anyway, it is reused as the
>> + * next pointer of a singly linked list of huge pages to be freed.
>> + */
>> +#define NEXT_PENDING ((struct page *)-1)
>> +static struct page *hpage_freelist;
>> +
>> +static void free_hpage_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct page *curr, *next;
>> + int cnt = 0;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + curr = xchg(&hpage_freelist, NULL);
>> + if (!curr)
>> + break;
>> +
>> + while (curr) {
>> + next = (struct page *)READ_ONCE(curr->mapping);
>> + if (next == NEXT_PENDING) {
>> + cpu_relax();
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + __free_huge_page(curr);
>> + curr = next;
>> + cnt++;
>> + }
>> + } while (!READ_ONCE(hpage_freelist));
>> +
>> + if (!cnt)
>> + return;
>> + pr_debug("HugeTLB: free_hpage_workfn() frees %d huge page(s)\n", cnt);
>> +}
>> +static DECLARE_WORK(free_hpage_work, free_hpage_workfn);
>> +
>> +void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * Defer freeing if in non-task context to avoid hugetlb_lock deadlock.
>> + */
>> + if (!in_task()) {
>> + struct page *next;
>> +
>> + page->mapping = (struct address_space *)NEXT_PENDING;
>> + next = xchg(&hpage_freelist, page);
>> + WRITE_ONCE(page->mapping, (struct address_space *)next);
>> + schedule_work(&free_hpage_work);
>> + return;
>> + }
> As Andrew mentioned, the design for the lockless queueing could use more
> explanation. I had to draw some diagrams before I felt relatively confident
> in the design.
>
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Racing may prevent some deferred huge pages in hpage_freelist
>> + * from being freed. Check here and call schedule_work() if that
>> + * is the case.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(hpage_freelist && !work_pending(&free_hpage_work)))
>> + schedule_work(&free_hpage_work);
> Can you describe the race which would leave deferred huge pages on
> hpage_freelist? I am having a hard time determining how that can happen.
I am being cautious here. It is related how the workqueue works. Whether
a call to schedule_work() has any effect depends on the pending bit in
the workqueue structure. I suppose that it is cleared once the work is
done. So depending on when the bit is cleared, there may be a small
timing window where free_hpage_workfn() is done but the bit has not been
cleared yet. A concurrent softIRQ task may update hpage_freelist and
call schedule_work() without actually queuing it. Perhaps I can check
the return status of schedule_work() and wait for a while there until
the queuing is successfully or the free list is changed. I will need to
look more carefully at the workqueue code to see how big this timing
window is.
> And, if this indeed can happen then I would have to ask what happens if
> a page is 'stuck' and we do not call free_huge_page? Do we need to take
> that case into account?
As said above, there may be way to reduce the racing window or eliminate
it altogether. I need a bit more time to investigate that. If there is
no way to eliminate the racing window, it is possible that a huge page
may get stuck in the free list for a while.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-16 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-16 18:27 Waiman Long
2019-12-16 21:51 ` Andrew Morton
2019-12-16 22:52 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-16 22:40 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-16 23:20 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-12-17 0:29 ` Waiman Long
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=2d7c31f9-371d-9a46-96c4-c37dd761c28d@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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