Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-add-vfree_atomic-fix
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
References: <87lgvlzp34.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
 <1481553981-3856-1-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
 <20161213101254.GC10498@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALCETrXq9a1E5M5qFFYTB4p7Ew682118bJNsWsiGQpNcFwD8Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161213172441.GA22610@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALCETrVmz5m6+yR-SsY=RTdRkF1UyN3qfRLjpjvor0U6Z=OM3w@mail.gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        "Jisheng Zhang" <jszhang@marvell.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        "John Dias" <joaodias@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKP <lkp@01.org>
From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <3eb4bfa4-ff94-bb5f-095a-3d17d68bf411@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:21:59 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVmz5m6+yR-SsY=RTdRkF1UyN3qfRLjpjvor0U6Z=OM3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2016 19:28:29.1998 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2050
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2200
Lines: 48

On 12/13/2016 09:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:


>>>
>>> But not quite acked by me.  What happened to the vfree code that
>>> causes vfree_deferred to be called in a preemptable context?  That
>>> sounds like a bug.
>>
>> Not sure I understand but the above stack points to a preemptible
>> context (copy_process). My stack was different and it looks preemptible as well.
>> free_thread_stack calls vfree_atomic unconditionally. So I am not sure
>> why do you think this is a bug?
>>
>>> (This code doesn't exist in Linus' tree.  What tree does this apply to.)
>>
>> Anyway, now that I am looking at Andrew's tree I can see [1] which
>> doesn't have this_cpu_ptr. So I am not sure where this this_cpu_ptr came
>> from. Maybe the previous version of the patch which has shown up in the
>> linux-next and Andrew has picked up [2] in the meantime. /me confused
>>
>> [1] http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-add-vfree_atomic.patch
>> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1481553981-3856-1-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com
> 
> The underlying issue seems to be that we have this shiny new function
> vfree_atomic() which doesn't work in *non-atomic* context and that we

It does work non-atomic context. It's fixed now.

> have "kernel/fork: use vfree_atomic() to free thread stack" that calls
> vfree_atomic() from non-atomic context.

>From both context actually. Usually task stack is freed from atomic context:
	http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161019111541.GQ29358@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com
	http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALCETrVqjejgpQVUdem8RK3uxdEgfOZy4cOJqJQjCLtBDnJfyQ@mail.gmail.com

On rare occasions it can be freed from non-atomic context, e.g. error path in copy_process().

> I'm not sure what the motivation of the latter patch was, but ISTM we
> should revert it.  TBH I'm not quite sure what the purpose of
> splitting vfree() and vfree_atomic() was, but I'm not seeing any
> reason that the common case of freeing stacks from non-atomic context
> should defer the free instead of just doing it right away.
>
> Andrey, Johannes, why should task stack freeing use vfree_atomic() in
> the first place?

Because vfree() now can sleep and task stack freeing usually done in atomic context.