lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section
From
Date


On 3/21/18 9:50 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 3/21/18 6:14 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 21-03-18 05:31:19, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> When running some mmap/munmap scalability tests with large memory (i.e.
>>>> 300GB), the below hung task issue may happen occasionally.
>>> INFO: task ps:14018 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>> Tainted: G E 4.9.79-009.ali3000.alios7.x86_64 #1
>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this
>>> message.
>>> ps D 0 14018 1 0x00000004
>>> ffff885582f84000 ffff885e8682f000 ffff880972943000 ffff885ebf499bc0
>>> ffff8828ee120000 ffffc900349bfca8 ffffffff817154d0 0000000000000040
>>> 00ffffff812f872a ffff885ebf499bc0 024000d000948300 ffff880972943000
>>> Call Trace:
>>> [<ffffffff817154d0>] ? __schedule+0x250/0x730
>>> [<ffffffff817159e6>] schedule+0x36/0x80
>>> [<ffffffff81718560>] rwsem_down_read_failed+0xf0/0x150
>>> [<ffffffff81390a28>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x18/0x30
>>> [<ffffffff81717db0>] down_read+0x20/0x40
>>> [<ffffffff812b9439>] proc_pid_cmdline_read+0xd9/0x4e0
>> Slightly off-topic:
>> Btw. this sucks as well. Do we really need to take mmap_sem here? Do any
>> of
>> arg_start = mm->arg_start;
>> arg_end = mm->arg_end;
>> env_start = mm->env_start;
>> env_end = mm->env_end;
>>
>> change after exec or while the pid is already visible in proc? If yes
>> maybe we can use a dedicated lock.

BTW, this is not the only place to acquire mmap_sem in
proc_pid_cmdline_read(), it calls access_remote_vm() which need acquire
mmap_sem too, so the mmap_sem scalability issue will be hit sooner or later.

Yang

>
> Actually, Alexey Dobriyan had the same comment when he reviewed my
> very first patch (which changes down_read to down_read_killable at
> that place).
>
> Those 4 values might be changed by prctl_set_mm() and
> prctl_set_mm_map() concurrently. They used to use down_read() to
> protect the change, but it looks not good enough to protect concurrent
> writing. So, Mateusz Guzik's commit
> ddf1d398e517e660207e2c807f76a90df543a217 ("prctl: take mmap sem for
> writing to protect against others") change it to down_write().
>
> It seems mmap_sem can be replaced to a dedicated lock. How about
> defining a rwlock in mm_struct to protect those data? I will come up
> with a RFC patch for this.
>
> However, this dedicated lock just can work around this specific case.
> I believe solving mmap_sem scalability issue aimed by the patch series
> is still our consensus.
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-21 18:17    [W:0.656 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site