The patch titled
Subject: mm, mempolicy: introduce spinlock to read shared policy tree
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-mempolicy-introduce-spinlock-to-read-shared-policy-tree.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm, mempolicy: introduce spinlock to read shared policy tree
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
do_numa_page() calls the new mpol_misplaced() function introduced by
"sched, numa, mm: Add the scanning page fault machinery" in the page fault
patch while holding mm->page_table_lock and then
mpol_shared_policy_lookup() ends up trying to take the shared policy
mutex.
The fix is to protect the shared policy tree with both a spinlock and
mutex; both must be held to modify the tree, but only one is required to
read the tree. This allows sp_lookup() to grab the spinlock for read.
[rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx: wrote changelog]
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 +
mm/mempolicy.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN include/linux/mempolicy.h~mm-mempolicy-introduce-spinlock-to-read-shared-policy-tree include/linux/mempolicy.h
--- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h~mm-mempolicy-introduce-spinlock-to-read-shared-policy-tree
+++ a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ struct sp_node {
struct shared_policy {
struct rb_root root;
+ spinlock_t lock;
struct mutex mutex;
};
diff -puN mm/mempolicy.c~mm-mempolicy-introduce-spinlock-to-read-shared-policy-tree mm/mempolicy.c
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-mempolicy-introduce-spinlock-to-read-shared-policy-tree
+++ a/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2127,12 +2127,20 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, s
*
* Remember policies even when nobody has shared memory mapped.
* The policies are kept in Red-Black tree linked from the inode.
- * They are protected by the sp->lock spinlock, which should be held
- * for any accesses to the tree.
+ *
+ * The rb-tree is locked using both a mutex and a spinlock. Every modification
+ * to the tree must hold both the mutex and the spinlock, lookups can hold
+ * either to observe a stable tree.
+ *
+ * In particular, sp_insert() and sp_delete() take the spinlock, whereas
+ * sp_lookup() doesn't, this so users have choice.
+ *
+ * shared_policy_replace() and mpol_free_shared_policy() take the mutex
+ * and call sp_insert(), sp_delete().
*/
/* lookup first element intersecting start-end */
-/* Caller holds sp->mutex */
+/* Caller holds either sp->lock and/or sp->mutex */
static struct sp_node *
sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
@@ -2171,6 +2179,7 @@ static void sp_insert(struct shared_poli
struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
struct sp_node *nd;
+ spin_lock(&sp->lock);
while (*p) {
parent = *p;
nd = rb_entry(parent, struct sp_node, nd);
@@ -2183,6 +2192,7 @@ static void sp_insert(struct shared_poli
}
rb_link_node(&new->nd, parent, p);
rb_insert_color(&new->nd, &sp->root);
+ spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
pr_debug("inserting %lx-%lx: %d\n", new->start, new->end,
new->policy ? new->policy->mode : 0);
}
@@ -2196,13 +2206,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_
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;
}
@@ -2324,8 +2334,10 @@ out:
static void sp_delete(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *n)
{
pr_debug("deleting %lx-l%lx\n", n->start, n->end);
+ spin_lock(&sp->lock);
rb_erase(&n->nd, &sp->root);
sp_free(n);
+ spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
}
static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
@@ -2410,6 +2422,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shar
int ret;
sp->root = RB_ROOT; /* empty tree == default mempolicy */
+ spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
if (mpol) {
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx are
mm-cond_resched-in-tlb_flush_mmu-to-fix-soft-lockups-on-config_preempt.patch
mm-limit-mmu_gather-batching-to-fix-soft-lockups-on-config_preempt.patch
maintainers-remove-arch-lib-perf_eventc.patch
linux-next.patch
ipc-semc-alternatives-to-preempt_disable.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
