On (06/03/16 10:00), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> a good find by Vlastimil.
> 
> Ebru, can you also re-visit __collapse_huge_page_swapin()? it's called
> from collapse_huge_page() under the down_read(&mm->mmap_sem), is there
> any reason to do the nested down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)?
> 
> collapse_huge_page()
> ...
>       down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>       result = hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, vma, address);
>       if (result)
>               goto out;
> 
>       pmd = mm_find_pmd(mm, address);
>       if (!pmd) {
>               result = SCAN_PMD_NULL;
>               goto out;
>       }
> 
>       if (allocstall == curr_allocstall && swap != 0) {
>               if (!__collapse_huge_page_swapin(mm, vma, address, pmd)) {
>                       {
>                       :       if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
>                       :               down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>                       :               ^^^^^^^^^

oh... it's in a loop

                for (_address = address; _address < address + 
HPAGE_PMD_NR*PAGE_SIZE;
                                                pte++, _address += PAGE_SIZE) {
                        ret = do_swap_page()
                        if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
                                down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
                                ^^^^^^^^^
                                ...
                        }
                }

so there can be multiple sem->count++ in __collapse_huge_page_swapin(),
and you don't know how many sem->count-- you need to do later? is this
correct or am I hallucinating?

        -ss

>                       :               if (hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, vma, 
> address))
>                       :                       return false;
>                       :       }
>                       }
> 
>                       up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>                       goto out;
>               }
>       }
> 
>       up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 
> 
> 
> so if __collapse_huge_page_swapin() retruns true we have:
>       - down_read() twice, up_read() once?
> 
> the locking rules here are a bit confusing. (I didn't have my morning coffee 
> yet).
> 
>       -ss
> 

Reply via email to