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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox