Re: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

[Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:57:22PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
>> split_huge_page_to_list() has page lock taken.
>> 
>> free_transhuge_page() is in the free path and doesn't susceptible to the
>> race.
>> 
>> deferred_split_scan() is trickier. list_move() should be safe against
>> list_empty() as it will not produce false-positive list_empty().
>> list_del_init() *should* (correct me if I'm wrong) be safe because the page
>> is freeing and memcg will not touch the page anymore.
>> 
>> deferred_split_huge_page() is a problematic one. It called from
>> page_remove_rmap() path witch does require page lock. I don't see any
>> obvious way to exclude race with mem_cgroup_move_account() here.
>> Anybody else?
>> 
>> Wei, could you rewrite the commit message with deferred_split_huge_page()
>> as a race source instead of split_huge_page_to_list()?
>> 
>
>I think describing the race in terms of deferred_split_huge_page() makes 
>the most sense and I'd prefer a cc to stable for 5.4+.  Even getting the 
>split_queue_len, which is unsigned long, to underflow because of a 
>list_empty(page_deferred_list()) check that is no longer accurate after 
>the lock is taken would be a significant issue for shrinkers.

Oh, you are right. Even the list is not corrupted between
deferred_split_scan() and mem_cgroup_move_account(), split_queue_len would be
in a wrong state.

Hmm... to some extend, the page lock complicates the picture a little here,
even it helps in some cases.

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me