Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() inmmu_take_all_locks()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 11:56:19 EST
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:42 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:43:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 13:27 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've almost got a patch done that converts those two, still need to look
> > > > where that tasklist_lock muck happens.
> > >
> > > OK, so the below builds and boots, only need to track down that
> > > tasklist_lock nesting, but I got to run an errand first.
> > You should have a look at my old patchset where Christoph already
> > implemented this (and not for decreasing latency but to allow
> > scheduling in mmu notifier handlers, only needed by XPMEM):
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.6/2.6.26-rc7/mmu-notifier-v18/
> > The ugliest part of it (that I think you missed below) is the breakage
> > of the RCU locking in the anon-vma which requires adding refcounting
> > to it. That was the worst part of the conversion as far as I can tell.
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.6/2.6.26-rc7/mmu-notifier-v18/anon-vma
> > I personally prefer read-write locks that Christoph used for both of
> > them, but I'm not against mutex either. Still the refcounting problem
> > should be the same as it's introduced by allowing the critical
> > sections under anon_vma->lock to schedule (no matter if it's mutex or
> > read-write sem).
> Right, so the problem with the rwsem is that, esp for very short hold
> times, they introduce more pain than they're worth. Also the rwsem
> doesn't do adaptive spinning nor allows for lock stealing, resulting in
> a much much heavier sync. object than the mutex is.
> You also seem to move the tlb_gather stuff around, we have patches in
> -rt that make tlb_gather preemptible, once i_mmap_lock is preemptible we
> can do in mainline too.
Another thing is mm->nr_ptes, that doens't appear to be properly
serialized, __pte_alloc() does ++ under mm->page_table_lock, but
free_pte_range() does -- which afaict isn't always with page_table_lock
held, it does however always seem to have mmap_sem for writing.
However __pte_alloc() callers do not in fact hold mmap_sem for writing.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/