Re: [linux-next: Tree for Jun 1] __khugepaged_exit rwsem_down_write_failed lockup

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 06/03/2016 05:10 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Michal,
>
> CC'ed Hugh,
>
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:46:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > What do you think about the external dependencies mentioned above. Do
> > you think this is a sufficient argument wrt. occasional higher
> > latencies?
>
> It's a tradeoff and both latencies would be short and uncommon so it's
> hard to tell.

Shouldn't it be possible to do a mmput() before the hugepage allocation, 
and then again mmget_not_zero()? That way it's no longer a tradeoff?

> There's also mmput_async for paths that may care about mmput
> latencies. Exit itself cannot use it, it's mostly for people taking
> the mm_users pin that may not want to wait for mmput to run. It also
> shouldn't happen that often, it's a slow path.
>
> The whole model inherited from KSM is to deliberately depend only on
> the mmap_sem + test_exit + mm_count, and never on mm_users, which to
> me in principle doesn't sound bad. I consider KSM version a
> "finegrined" implementation but I never thought it would be a problem
> to wait a bit in exit() in case the slow path hits. I thought it was
> more of a problem if exit() runs, the parent then start a new task but
> the memory wasn't freed yet.
>
> So I would suggest Hugh to share his view on the down_write/up_write
> that may temporarily block mmput (until the next test_exit bailout
> point) vs higher latency in reaching exit_mmap for a real exit(2) that
> would happen with the proposed change.
>
> Thanks!
> Andrea
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>