On Tue 12-01-21 17:51:05, Muchun Song wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:33 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon 11-01-21 17:20:51, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > On 1/10/21 4:40 AM, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > There is a race between dissolve_free_huge_page() and put_page(), > > > > and the race window is quite small. Theoretically, we should return > > > > -EBUSY when we encounter this race. In fact, we have a chance to > > > > successfully dissolve the page if we do a retry. Because the race > > > > window is quite small. If we seize this opportunity, it is an > > > > optimization for increasing the success rate of dissolving page. > > > > > > > > If we free a HugeTLB page from a non-task context, it is deferred > > > > through a workqueue. In this case, we need to flush the work. > > > > > > > > The dissolve_free_huge_page() can be called from memory hotplug, > > > > the caller aims to free the HugeTLB page to the buddy allocator > > > > so that the caller can unplug the page successfully. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > mm/hugetlb.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > I am unsure about the need for this patch. The code is OK, there are no > > > issues with the code. > > > > > > As mentioned in the commit message, this is an optimization and could > > > potentially cause a memory offline operation to succeed instead of fail. > > > However, we are very unlikely to ever exercise this code. Adding an > > > optimization that is unlikely to be exercised is certainly questionable. > > > > > > Memory offline is the only code that could benefit from this optimization. > > > As someone with more memory offline user experience, what is your opinion > > > Michal? > > > > I am not a great fun of optimizations without any data to back them up. > > I do not see any sign this code has been actually tested and the > > condition triggered. > > This race is quite small. I only trigger this only once on my server. > And then the kernel panic. So I sent this patch series to fix some > bugs. Memory hotplug shouldn't panic when this race happens. Are you sure you have seen a race that is directly related to this patch? > > Besides that I have requested to have an explanation of why blocking on > > the WQ is safe and that hasn't happened. > > I have seen all the caller of dissolve_free_huge_page, some caller is under > page lock (via lock_page). Others are also under a sleep context. > > So I think that blocking on the WQ is safe. Right? I have requested to explicitly write your thinking why this is safe so that we can double check it. Dependency on a work queue progress is much more complex than any other locks because there is no guarantee that WQ will make forward progress (all workers might be stuck, new workers not able to be created etc.). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
