lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V9 04/15] hugetlb: use mmu_gather instead of a temporary linked list for accumulating pages
On Wed 13-06-12 22:13:00, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> writes:
>
> > On Wed 13-06-12 16:59:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 13-06-12 15:57:23, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> >
> >> > Use a mmu_gather instead of a temporary linked list for accumulating
> >> > pages when we unmap a hugepage range
> >>
> >> Sorry for coming up with the comment that late but you owe us an
> >> explanation _why_ you are doing this.
> >>
> >> I assume that this fixes a real problem when we take i_mmap_mutex
> >> already up in
> >> unmap_mapping_range
> >> mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> >> unmap_mapping_range_tree | unmap_mapping_range_list
> >> unmap_mapping_range_vma
> >> zap_page_range_single
> >> unmap_single_vma
> >> unmap_hugepage_range
> >> mutex_lock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> >>
> >> And that this should have been marked for stable as well (I haven't
> >> checked when this has been introduced).
> >>
> >> But then I do not see how this help when you still do this:
> >> [...]
> >> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> > index 1b7dc66..545e18a 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> > @@ -1326,8 +1326,11 @@ static void unmap_single_vma(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> >> > * Since no pte has actually been setup, it is
> >> > * safe to do nothing in this case.
> >> > */
> >> > - if (vma->vm_file)
> >> > - unmap_hugepage_range(vma, start, end, NULL);
> >> > + if (vma->vm_file) {
> >> > + mutex_lock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> >> > + __unmap_hugepage_range(tlb, vma, start, end, NULL);
> >> > + mutex_unlock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> >> > + }
> >> > } else
> >> > unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, start, end, details);
> >> > }
> >
> > Ahhh, you are removing the lock in the next patch. Really confusing and
> > not nice for the stable backport.
> > Could you merge those two patches and add Cc: stable?
> > Then you can add my
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> >
>
> In the last review cycle I was asked to see if we can get a lockdep
> report for the above and what I found was we don't really cause the
> above deadlock with the current codebase because for hugetlb we don't
> directly call unmap_mapping_range.

Ahh, ok I missed that.

> But still it is good to remove the i_mmap_mutex, because we don't need
> that protection now. I didn't mark it for stable because of the above
> reason.

Thanks for clarification

>
> -aneesh
>

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-14 10:01    [W:1.314 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site