lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/cma.c: remove redundant cma_mutex lock
From
Date
On 10/20/20 1:27 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.10.20 12:22, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
>> The cma_mutex which protects alloc_contig_range() was first appeared in
>> commit 7ee793a62fa8c ("cma: Remove potential deadlock situation"),
>> at that time, there is no guarantee the behavior of concurrency inside
>> alloc_contig_range().
>>
>> After the commit 2c7452a075d4db2dc
>> ("mm/page_isolation.c: make start_isolate_page_range() fail if already isolated")
>> > However, two subsystems (CMA and gigantic
>> > huge pages for example) could attempt operations on the same range. If
>> > this happens, one thread may 'undo' the work another thread is doing.
>> > This can result in pageblocks being incorrectly left marked as
>> > MIGRATE_ISOLATE and therefore not available for page allocation.
>> The concurrency inside alloc_contig_range() was clarified.
>>
>> Now we can find that hugepage and virtio call alloc_contig_range() without
>> any lock, thus cma_mutex is "redundant" in cma_alloc() now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
>> ---
>> mm/cma.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c
>> index 7f415d7cda9f..3692a34e2353 100644
>> --- a/mm/cma.c
>> +++ b/mm/cma.c
>> @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@
>>
>> struct cma cma_areas[MAX_CMA_AREAS];
>> unsigned cma_area_count;
>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cma_mutex);
>>
>> phys_addr_t cma_get_base(const struct cma *cma)
>> {
>> @@ -454,10 +453,9 @@ struct page *cma_alloc(struct cma *cma, size_t count, unsigned int align,
>> mutex_unlock(&cma->lock);
>>
>> pfn = cma->base_pfn + (bitmap_no << cma->order_per_bit);
>> - mutex_lock(&cma_mutex);
>> ret = alloc_contig_range(pfn, pfn + count, MIGRATE_CMA,
>> GFP_KERNEL | (no_warn ? __GFP_NOWARN : 0));
>> - mutex_unlock(&cma_mutex);
>> +
>> if (ret == 0) {
>> page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> break;
>>
>
> I guess this is fine. In case there is a race we return with -EBUSY -
> which is suboptimal (as it could just be a temporary issue if the other
> user backs off), but should be good enough for now.

Agreed.

> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-23 13:30    [W:0.054 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site