On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:02:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Kosaki's patch does not fix the actual problem with NUMA hinting
> > faults. Converting to a spinlock is nice but we'd still hold the PTL at
> > the time sp_alloc is called and potentially allocating GFP_KERNEL with a
> > spinlock held.
>
> The problem I saw reported - and the problem that the "mutex+spinlock"
> patch was fixing - wasn't actually sp_alloc(), but just sp_lookup()
> through mpol_shared_policy_lookup().
>
> And converting that to a spinlock would definitely fix it - taking
> that spinlock quickly for the lookup while holding the pt lock is
> fine.
>
Yes, I realised when walking to the shop afterwards that sp_alloc()
should never be called from this path as we're only reading the policy,
no modifications. Kosaki's patch on its own is enough.
> So I don't hate this patch, but I don't see the point of your games in
> do_pmd_numa_page(). I'm not seeing the allocation in mpol_misplaced(),
> and that wasn't what the original report was.
>
They are unnecessary. This passed the same set of tests. We're still leaking
shared_policy_node which regressed at some point but I'm not going to get
the chance to debug that before the new years unfortunately.
---8<---
mm: mempolicy: Convert shared_policy mutex to spinlock
Sasha was fuzzing with trinity and reported the following problem:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6361, name: trinity-main
2 locks held by trinity-main/6361:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810aa314>] __do_page_fault+0x1e4/0x4f0
#1: (&(&mm->page_table_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8122f017>] handle_pte_fault+0x3f7/0x6a0
Pid: 6361, comm: trinity-main Tainted: G W
3.7.0-rc2-next-20121024-sasha-00001-gd95ef01-dirty #74
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8114e393>] __might_sleep+0x1c3/0x1e0
[<ffffffff83ae5209>] mutex_lock_nested+0x29/0x50
[<ffffffff8124fc3e>] mpol_shared_policy_lookup+0x2e/0x90
[<ffffffff81219ebe>] shmem_get_policy+0x2e/0x30
[<ffffffff8124e99a>] get_vma_policy+0x5a/0xa0
[<ffffffff8124fce1>] mpol_misplaced+0x41/0x1d0
[<ffffffff8122f085>] handle_pte_fault+0x465/0x6a0
This was triggered by a different version of automatic NUMA balancing but
in theory the current version is vunerable to the same problem.
do_numa_page
-> numa_migrate_prep
-> mpol_misplaced
-> get_vma_policy
-> shmem_get_policy
It's very unlikely this will happen as shared pages are not marked
pte_numa -- see the page_mapcount() check in change_pte_range() -- but
it is possible.
To address this, this patch restores sp->lock as originally implemented
by Kosaki Motohiro. In the path where get_vma_policy() is called, it
should not be calling sp_alloc() so it is not necessary to treat the PTL
specially.
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mempolicy.h | 2 +-
mm/mempolicy.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
index 9adc270..cc51d17 100644
--- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ struct sp_node {
struct shared_policy {
struct rb_root root;
- struct mutex mutex;
+ spinlock_t lock;
};
void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol);
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index d1b315e..ed8ebbf 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2132,7 +2132,7 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
*/
/* lookup first element intersecting start-end */
-/* Caller holds sp->mutex */
+/* Caller holds sp->lock */
static struct sp_node *
sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
@@ -2196,13 +2196,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
if (!sp->root.rb_node)
return NULL;
- mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
+ spin_lock(&sp->lock);
sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
if (sn) {
mpol_get(sn->policy);
pol = sn->policy;
}
- mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
+ spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
return pol;
}
@@ -2328,6 +2328,14 @@ static void sp_delete(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *n)
sp_free(n);
}
+static void sp_node_init(struct sp_node *node, unsigned long start,
+ unsigned long end, struct mempolicy *pol)
+{
+ node->start = start;
+ node->end = end;
+ node->policy = pol;
+}
+
static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
struct mempolicy *pol)
{
@@ -2344,10 +2352,7 @@ static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
return NULL;
}
newpol->flags |= MPOL_F_SHARED;
-
- n->start = start;
- n->end = end;
- n->policy = newpol;
+ sp_node_init(n, start, end, newpol);
return n;
}
@@ -2357,9 +2362,12 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end, struct sp_node *new)
{
struct sp_node *n;
+ struct sp_node *n_new = NULL;
+ struct mempolicy *mpol_new = NULL;
int ret = 0;
- mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
+restart:
+ spin_lock(&sp->lock);
n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end);
/* Take care of old policies in the same range. */
while (n && n->start < end) {
@@ -2372,14 +2380,16 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
} else {
/* Old policy spanning whole new range. */
if (n->end > end) {
- struct sp_node *new2;
- new2 = sp_alloc(end, n->end, n->policy);
- if (!new2) {
- ret = -ENOMEM;
- goto out;
- }
+ if (!n_new)
+ goto alloc_new;
+
+ *mpol_new = *n->policy;
+ atomic_set(&mpol_new->refcnt, 1);
+ sp_node_init(n_new, n->end, end, mpol_new);
+ sp_insert(sp, n_new);
n->end = start;
- sp_insert(sp, new2);
+ n_new = NULL;
+ mpol_new = NULL;
break;
} else
n->end = start;
@@ -2390,9 +2400,27 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
}
if (new)
sp_insert(sp, new);
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
+ spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+ ret = 0;
+
+err_out:
+ if (mpol_new)
+ mpol_put(mpol_new);
+ if (n_new)
+ kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n_new);
+
return ret;
+
+alloc_new:
+ spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!n_new)
+ goto err_out;
+ mpol_new = kmem_cache_alloc(policy_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!mpol_new)
+ goto err_out;
+ goto restart;
}
/**
@@ -2410,7 +2438,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
int ret;
sp->root = RB_ROOT; /* empty tree == default mempolicy */
- mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
+ spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
if (mpol) {
struct vm_area_struct pvma;
@@ -2476,14 +2504,14 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
if (!p->root.rb_node)
return;
- mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
+ spin_lock(&p->lock);
next = rb_first(&p->root);
while (next) {
n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
next = rb_next(&n->nd);
sp_delete(p, n);
}
- mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
+ spin_unlock(&p->lock);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
--
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>