Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path

[Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 05/07/2017 20:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 07:52:33PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> @@ -2294,8 +2295,19 @@ static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>  	if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence))
>>  		goto out;
>>  
>> -	pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>> -				  vmf->address, &ptl);
>> +	/* Same as pte_offset_map_lock() except that we call
> 
> comment style..

Hi Peter and thanks for your work and review.

I'll fix this comment style.

> 
>> +	 * spin_trylock() in place of spin_lock() to avoid race with
>> +	 * unmap path which may have the lock and wait for this CPU
>> +	 * to invalidate TLB but this CPU has irq disabled.
>> +	 * Since we are in a speculative patch, accept it could fail
>> +	 */
>> +	ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>> +	pte = pte_offset_map(vmf->pmd, vmf->address);
>> +	if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(ptl))) {
>> +		pte_unmap(pte);
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence)) {
>>  		pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
>>  		goto out;
> 
> Right, so if you look at my earlier patches you'll see I did something
> quite disgusting here.
> 
> Not sure that wants repeating, but I cannot remember why I thought this
> deadlock didn't exist anymore.

Regarding the deadlock I did face it on my Power victim node, so I guess it
is still there, and the stack traces are quiet explicit.
Am I missing something here ?

Thanks,
Laurent.

--
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>