From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:01:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200723180100.GA21755@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgyc7en4=HddEYiz_RKJXfqe1JYv3BzHc=+_wYq9ti+LQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So here's a v2, now as a "real" commit with a commit message and everything.
I am already sleeping, will read it tomorrow, but at first glance...
> @@ -1013,18 +1014,40 @@ static int wake_page_function(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
> if (wait_page->bit_nr != key->bit_nr)
> return 0;
>
> + /* Stop walking if it's locked */
> + if (wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) {
> + if (test_and_set_bit(key->bit_nr, &key->page->flags))
> + return -1;
> + } else {
> + if (test_bit(key->bit_nr, &key->page->flags))
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> /*
> - * Stop walking if it's locked.
> - * Is this safe if put_and_wait_on_page_locked() is in use?
> - * Yes: the waker must hold a reference to this page, and if PG_locked
> - * has now already been set by another task, that task must also hold
> - * a reference to the *same usage* of this page; so there is no need
> - * to walk on to wake even the put_and_wait_on_page_locked() callers.
> + * Let the waiter know we have done the page flag
> + * handling for it (and the return value lets the
> + * wakeup logic count exclusive wakeup events).
> */
> - if (test_bit(key->bit_nr, &key->page->flags))
> - return -1;
> + ret = (wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) != 0;
> + wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
> + wake_up_state(wait->private, mode);
>
> - return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
> + /*
> + * Ok, we have successfully done what we're waiting for,
> + * and we can unconditionally remove the wait entry.
> + *
> + * Note that this has to be the absolute last thing we do,
> + * since after list_del_init(&wait->entry) the wait entry
> + * might be de-allocated and the process might even have
> + * exited.
> + *
> + * We _really_ should have a "list_del_init_careful()" to
> + * properly pair with the unlocked "list_empty_careful()"
> + * in finish_wait().
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> + list_del_init(&wait->entry);
I think smp_wmb() would be enough, but this is minor.
We need a barrier between "wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN" and list_del_init(),
But afaics we need another barrier, rmb(), in wait_on_page_bit_common() for
the case when wait->private was not blocked; we need to ensure that if
finish_wait() sees list_empty_careful() == T then we can't miss WQ_FLAG_WOKEN.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-23 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-21 6:32 [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 11:10 ` Qian Cai
2020-07-21 11:25 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 11:44 ` Qian Cai
2020-07-21 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 13:23 ` Qian Cai
2020-07-21 13:38 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 14:15 ` Qian Cai
2020-07-21 14:17 ` Chris Down
2020-07-21 15:00 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 15:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-21 15:49 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-22 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-22 21:29 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-22 22:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-22 23:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 0:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 12:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 18:01 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2020-07-23 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 19:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 14:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 23:11 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-23 23:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 0:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-24 0:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 3:45 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-24 15:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-24 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 2:08 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-25 2:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 10:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 19:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-26 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 21:19 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 4:22 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 20:30 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 20:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-26 22:09 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-27 19:35 ` Greg KH
2020-08-06 5:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-18 13:50 ` Greg KH
2020-08-06 5:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-06 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-06 18:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-06 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-07 18:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-07 19:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-07 19:35 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-03 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-03 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 9:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 8:03 ` Michal Hocko
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=20200723180100.GA21755@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.