On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:31 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:27:12AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:19 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:09:26AM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > > > Hard lockup[2] is reported which should be caused by recursive
> > > > lock contention of lruvec->lru_lock[1] within __split_huge_page.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> > > > pgoff_t end, unsigned int new_order)
> > > > {
> > > > /* lock lru list/PageCompound, ref frozen by page_ref_freeze */
> > > > //1st lock here
> > > > lruvec = folio_lruvec_lock(folio);
> > > >
> > > > for (i = nr - new_nr; i >= new_nr; i -= new_nr) {
> > > > __split_huge_page_tail(folio, i, lruvec, list, new_order);
> > > > /* Some pages can be beyond EOF: drop them from page cache */
> > > > if (head[i].index >= end) {
> > > > folio_put(tail);
> > > > __page_cache_release
> > > > //2nd lock here
> > > > folio_lruvec_relock_irqsave
> > >
> > > Why doesn't lockdep catch this?
> > It is reported by a regression test of the fix patch which aims at the
> > find_get_entry livelock issue as below. I don't know the details of
> > the kernel configuration.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/5f989315-e380-46aa-80d1-ce8608889e5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Go away.
ok, you are the boss anyway. But this series of call chain does have
the risk of deadlock, right? Besides, the livelock issue which is
caused by zero ref-count folio within find_get_entry is kept being
reported by different users.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CALOAHbC8NM7R-pKvPW6m4fnn_8BQZuPjJrNZaEN=sg67Gp+NGQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
