On Sat 27-03-21 15:06:36, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:29 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Commit c77c0a8ac4c5 ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in
> > non-task context") was added to address the issue of free_huge_page
> > being called from irq context. That commit hands off free_huge_page
> > processing to a workqueue if !in_task. However, as seen in [1] this
> > does not cover all cases. Instead, make the locks taken in the
> > free_huge_page irq safe.
> >
> > This patch does the following:
> > - Make hugetlb_lock irq safe. This is mostly a simple process of
> > changing spin_*lock calls to spin_*lock_irq* calls.
> > - Make subpool lock irq safe in a similar manner.
> > - Revert the !in_task check and workqueue handoff.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/000000000000f1c03b05bc43aadc@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The changes are straightforward.
>
> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Since this patchset aims to fix a real word issue. Should we add a Fixes
> tag?
Do we know since when it is possible to use hugetlb in the networking
context? Maybe this is possible since ever but I am wondering why the
lockdep started complaining only now. Maybe just fuzzing finally started
using this setup which nobody does normally.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
