linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org,
	lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
	vbabka@suse.cz, rppt@kernel.org, surenb@google.com,
	mhocko@suse.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com,
	song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
	haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	ziy@nvidia.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, clrkwllms@kernel.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	ryan.roberts@arm.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com,
	yang@os.amperecomputing.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mmu: use pagetable_alloc_nolock() while stop_machine()
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:06:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aT/drjN1BkvyAGoi@e129823.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DEYP7JSVTB9D.3EFN2KEHH3O79@google.com>

> On Mon Dec 15, 2025 at 9:34 AM UTC, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > Hi Brendan,
> >> On Sun Dec 14, 2025 at 9:13 AM UTC, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> >> >> I don't have the context on what this code is doing so take this with
> >> >> a grain of salt, but...
> >> >>
> >> >> The point of the _nolock alloc is to give the allocator an excuse to
> >> >> fail. Panicking on that failure doesn't seem like a great idea to me?
> >> >
> >> > I thought first whether it changes to "static" memory area to handle
> >> > this in PREEMPT_RT.
> >> > But since this function is called while smp_cpus_done().
> >> > So, I think it's fine since there wouldn't be a contention for
> >> > memory allocation in this phase.
> >>
> >> Then shouldn't it use _nolock unconditionally?
> >
> > As you pointed out, I think it should be fine even in the !PREEMPT_RT case.
> > However, in case I missed something or if my understanding is incorrect,
> > I applied it only to the PREEMPT_RT case for now.
>
> Hmm, I don't think "this code might be broken so let's cage it behind a
> conditional" is a good strategy.
>
> 1. It bloats the codebase.
>
> 2. It's confusing to readers, now you have to try an understand why this
>    conditional is here, which is a doomed effort. This could be
>    mitigated with comments but, see point 1.
>
> 3. It expands the testing matrix. So now we have code that we aren't
>    really sure is correct, AND it gets less test coverage.
>
> Overall I am feeling a bit uncomfortable about this use of _nolock, but
> I am also feeling pretty ignorant about PREEMPT_RT and also about this
> arm64 code, so I am hesitant to suggest alternatives, I hope someone
> else can offer some input here...

I understand. However, as I mentioned earlier,
my main intention was to hear opinions specifically about memory contention.

That said, if there is no memory contention,
I don’t think using the _nolock API is necessarily a bad approach.
In fact, I believe a bigger issue is that, under PREEMPT_RT,
code that uses the regular memory allocation APIs may give users the false impression
that those APIs are “safe to use,” even though they are not.

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun


  reply	other threads:[~2025-12-15 10:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-12 16:18 [PATCH 0/2] introduce pagetable_alloc_nolock() Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-12 16:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: " Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-12 16:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mmu: use pagetable_alloc_nolock() while stop_machine() Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-13  7:05   ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-14  9:13     ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-15  9:22       ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-15  9:34         ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-15  9:55           ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-15 10:06             ` Yeoreum Yun [this message]
2025-12-16 10:10               ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-16 11:03                 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-16 11:26                   ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-16 12:01                     ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-16 12:39                       ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-16 13:25                         ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-18  9:30   ` Michal Hocko
2025-12-18  9:36     ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-18 12:02       ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-18 12:17         ` Michal Hocko
2025-12-18 12:24           ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-16 15:11 ` [PATCH 0/2] introduce pagetable_alloc_nolock() Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 16:52   ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-17  9:34     ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-17 10:48       ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-17 12:04         ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-17 12:52           ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-17 13:15             ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-12-17 13:35               ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-17 13:56                 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-17 15:10                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-12-17 17:19                   ` Brendan Jackman
2025-12-18  7:47                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-12-18  7:52                   ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-12-23 22:59           ` Yang Shi
2025-12-24  7:00             ` Yeoreum Yun

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=aT/drjN1BkvyAGoi@e129823.arm.com \
    --to=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=jackmanb@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.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