Re: [patch] mm, mempolicy: Introduce spinlock to read shared policy tree
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Date: 2012-12-21 23:10:34
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
memory management, memory management - memory policy and migration, the rest · Maintainers:
Andrew Morton, David Hildenbrand, Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:02:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
---
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@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>