On Thu 11-03-21 09:40:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-03-21 15:28:51, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:10:12PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 3/10/21 1:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:11:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >> On Wed 10-03-21 10:56:08, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > >>> On 3/10/21 7:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >>>> On Mon 08-03-21 18:28:02, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > >>>> [...]
> > > >>>>> @@ -1447,7 +1486,7 @@ void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> > > >>>>> /*
> > > >>>>> * Defer freeing if in non-task context to avoid hugetlb_lock deadlock.
> > > >>>>> */
> > > >>>>> - if (!in_task()) {
> > > >>>>> + if (in_atomic()) {
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As I've said elsewhere in_atomic doesn't work for CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n.
> > > >>>> We need this change for other reasons and so it would be better to pull
> > > >>>> it out into a separate patch which also makes HUGETLB depend on
> > > >>>> PREEMPT_COUNT.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, the issue of calling put_page for hugetlb pages from any context
> > > >>> still needs work. IMO, that is outside the scope of this series. We
> > > >>> already have code in this path which blocks/sleeps.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Making HUGETLB depend on PREEMPT_COUNT is too restrictive. IIUC,
> > > >>> PREEMPT_COUNT will only be enabled if we enable:
> > > >>> PREEMPT "Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)"
> > > >>> PREEMPT_RT "Fully Preemptible Kernel (Real-Time)"
> > > >>> or, other 'debug' options. These are not enabled in 'more common'
> > > >>> kernels. Of course, we do not want to disable HUGETLB in common
> > > >>> configurations.
> > > >>
> > > >> I haven't tried that but PREEMPT_COUNT should be selectable even without
> > > >> any change to the preemption model (e.g. !PREEMPT).
> > > >
> > > > It works reliably for me, for example as in the diff below. So,
> > > > as Michal says, you should be able to add "select PREEMPT_COUNT" to
> > > > whatever Kconfig option you need to.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Paul.
> > >
> > > I may have been misreading Michal's suggestion of "make HUGETLB depend on
> > > PREEMPT_COUNT". We could "select PREEMPT_COUNT" if HUGETLB is enabled.
> > > However, since HUGETLB is enabled in most configs, then this would
> > > result in PREEMPT_COUNT also being enabled in most configs. I honestly
> > > do not know how much this will cost us? I assume that if it was free or
> > > really cheap it would already be always on?
> >
> > There are a -lot- of configs out there, so are you sure that HUGETLB is
> > really enabled in most of them? ;-)
>
> It certainly is enabled for all distribution kernels and many are
> !PREEMPT so I believe this is what Mike was concerned about.
>
> > More seriously, I was going by earlier emails in this and related threads
> > plus Michal's "PREEMPT_COUNT should be selectable". But there are other
> > situations that would like PREEMPT_COUNT. And to your point, some who
> > would rather PREEMPT_COUNT not be universally enabled. I haven't seen
> > any performance or kernel-size numbers from any of them, however.
>
> Yeah per cpu preempt counting shouldn't be noticeable but I have to
> confess I haven't benchmarked it.
But all this seems moot now http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YEoA08n60+jzsnAl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
