On Tue 07-02-17 11:34:35, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-02-17 10:28:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:49:28AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > On 02/07/2017 10:43 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > If I'm reading this right, a hot-remove will set the pool POOL_DISASSOCIATED
> > > > > and unbound. A workqueue queued for draining get migrated during hot-remove
> > > > > and a drain operation will execute twice on a CPU -- one for what was
> > > > > queued and a second time for the CPU it was migrated from. It should still
> > > > > work with flush_work which doesn't appear to block forever if an item
> > > > > got migrated to another workqueue. The actual drain workqueue function is
> > > > > using the CPU ID it's currently running on so it shouldn't get confused.
> > > >
> > > > Is the worker that will process this migrated workqueue also guaranteed
> > > > to be pinned to a cpu for the whole work, though? drain_local_pages()
> > > > needs that guarantee.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It should be by running on a workqueue handler bound to that CPU (queued
> > > on wq->cpu_pwqs in __queue_work)
> >
> > Are you sure? The comment in kernel/workqueue.c says
> > * While DISASSOCIATED, the cpu may be offline and all workers have
> > * %WORKER_UNBOUND set and concurrency management disabled, and may
> > * be executing on any CPU. The pool behaves as an unbound one.
> >
> > I might be misreadig but an unbound pool can be handled by workers which
> > are not pinned on any cpu AFAIU.
>
> Right. The unbind operation can set a mask that is any allowable CPU and
> the final process_work is not done in a context that prevents
> preemption.
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3b93879990fd..7af165d308c4 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2342,7 +2342,14 @@ void drain_local_pages(struct zone *zone)
>
> static void drain_local_pages_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> + /*
> + * Ordinarily a drain operation is bound to a CPU but may be unbound
> + * after a CPU hotplug operation so it's necessary to disable
> + * preemption for the drain to stabilise the CPU ID.
> + */
> + preempt_disable();
> drain_local_pages(NULL);
> + preempt_enable_no_resched();
> }
>
> /*
[...]
> @@ -6711,7 +6714,16 @@ static int page_alloc_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> {
>
> lru_add_drain_cpu(cpu);
> +
> + /*
> + * A per-cpu drain via a workqueue from drain_all_pages can be
> + * rescheduled onto an unrelated CPU. That allows the hotplug
> + * operation and the drain to potentially race on the same
> + * CPU. Serialise hotplug versus drain using pcpu_drain_mutex
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> drain_pages(cpu);
> + mutex_unlock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
You cannot put sleepable lock inside the preempt disbaled section...
We can make it a spinlock right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
