From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems_allowed
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:43:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ece0714-2646-4f1a-60b6-aaafc1135b1e@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YvJO5uX0pSAh6weA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 8/9/22 8:11 PM, Michal Hocko Wrote:
> On Tue 09-08-22 18:49:27, Abel Wu wrote:
>> The mems_allowed field can be modified by other tasks, so it
>> isn't safe to access it with alloc_lock unlocked even in the
>> current process context.
>
> It would be useful to describe the racing scenario and the effect it
> would have. 78b132e9bae9 hasn't really explained thinking behind and why
> it was considered safe to drop the lock. I assume it was based on the
> fact that the operation happens on the current task but this is hard to
> tell.
>
Sorry for my poor description. Say there are two tasks: A from cpusetA
is performing set_mempolicy(2), and B is changing cpusetA's cpuset.mems.
A (set_mempolicy) B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
pol = mpol_new();
update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
foreach t in cpusetA {
cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
task_lock(t); // t could be A
mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
new = f(A->mems_allowed);
update t->mems_allowed;
pol.create(pol, new);
}
task_unlock(t);
task_lock(A);
A->mempolicy = pol;
task_unlock(A);
}
}
}
In this case A's pol->nodes is computed by old mems_allowed, and could
be inconsistent with A's new mems_allowed.
While it is different when replacing vmas' policy: the pol->nodes is
gone wild only when current_cpuset_is_being_rebound():
A (mbind) B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
cpuset_being_rebound = cpusetA;
update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
foreach t in cpusetA {
cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
task_lock(t); // t could be A
pol = mpol_new();
mmap_write_lock(A->mm);
mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
mask = f(A->mems_allowed);
update t->mems_allowed;
pol.create(pol, mask);
}
task_unlock(t);
}
foreach v in A->mm {
if (current_cpuset_is_being_rebound())
pol.rebind(pol, cpuset.mems);
v->vma_policy = pol;
}
mmap_write_unlock(A->mm);
mmap_write_lock(t->mm);
mpol_rebind_mm(t->mm);
mmap_write_unlock(t->mm);
}
}
cpuset_being_rebound = NULL;
In this case, the cpuset.mems, which has already done updating, is
finally used for calculating pol->nodes, rather than A->mems_allowed.
So it is OK to call mpol_set_nodemask() with alloc_lock unlocked when
doing mbind(2).
Best Regards,
Abel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-11 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-09 10:49 Abel Wu
2022-08-09 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-11 8:43 ` Abel Wu [this message]
2022-08-11 9:09 ` Michal Hocko
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=7ece0714-2646-4f1a-60b6-aaafc1135b1e@bytedance.com \
--to=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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