Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1613527
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: allow to call vfree() in atomic context |
| Date | 2017-03-31 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tqQJP-4vR-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tqLTQ-1a6-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:27:16 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> Commit 5803ed292e63 ("mm: mark all calls into the vmalloc subsystem
> as potentially sleeping") added might_sleep() to remove_vm_area() from
> vfree(), and commit 763b218ddfaf ("mm: add preempt points into
> __purge_vmap_area_lazy()") actually made vfree() potentially sleeping.
>
> This broke vmwgfx driver which calls vfree() under spin_lock().
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/vmalloc.c:1480
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 341, name: plymouthd
> 2 locks held by plymouthd/341:
> #0: (drm_global_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffc01c274b>] drm_release+0x3b/0x3b0 [drm]
> #1: (&(&tfile->lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffc0173038>] ttm_object_file_release+0x28/0x90 [ttm]
>
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x86/0xc3
> ___might_sleep+0x17d/0x250
> __might_sleep+0x4a/0x80
> remove_vm_area+0x22/0x90
> __vunmap+0x2e/0x110
> vfree+0x42/0x90
> kvfree+0x2c/0x40
> drm_ht_remove+0x1a/0x30 [drm]
> ttm_object_file_release+0x50/0x90 [ttm]
> vmw_postclose+0x47/0x60 [vmwgfx]
> drm_release+0x290/0x3b0 [drm]
> __fput+0xf8/0x210
> ____fput+0xe/0x10
> task_work_run+0x85/0xc0
> exit_to_usermode_loop+0xb4/0xc0
> do_syscall_64+0x185/0x1f0
> entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
>
> This can be fixed in vmgfx, but it would be better to make vfree()
> non-sleeping again because we may have other bugs like this one.
I tend to disagree: adding yet another schedule_work() introduces
additional overhead and adds some risk of ENOMEM errors which wouldn't
occur with a synchronous free.
> __purge_vmap_area_lazy() is the only function in the vfree() path that
> wants to be able to sleep. So it make sense to schedule
> __purge_vmap_area_lazy() via schedule_work() so it runs only in sleepable
> context.
vfree() already does
if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
__vfree_deferred(addr);
so it seems silly to introduce another defer-to-kernel-thread thing
when we already have one.
> This will have a minimal effect on the regular vfree() path.
> since __purge_vmap_area_lazy() is rarely called.
hum, OK, so perhaps the overhead isn't too bad.
Remind me: where does __purge_vmap_area_lazy() sleep?
Seems to me that a better fix would be to make vfree() atomic, if poss.
Otherwise, to fix callers so they call vfree from sleepable context.
That will reduce kernel latencies as well.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: allow to call vfree() in atomic context Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-31 00:30 +0200 Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: allow to call vfree() in atomic context Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-03-31 09:20 +0200 Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: allow to call vfree() in atomic context Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-04-04 11:40 +0200
csiph-web