From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Dec 2021 20:45:22 +0100
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>, cgel.zte@gmail.com,
        shakeelb@google.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, dbueso@suse.de,
        unixbhaskar@gmail.com, chi.minghao@zte.com.cn, arnd@arndb.de,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        1vier1@web.de, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/util.c: Make kvfree() safe for calling while holding
 spinlocks
Message-ID: <YctpUurav74Ir5YS@pc638.lan>
References: <20211222194828.15320-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <Ycdo1PHC9KDD8eGD@pc638.lan>
 <YceiFXyoGcgPaLeJ@casper.infradead.org>
 <Ycis/J1U2DB6Zx7j@pc638.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ycis/J1U2DB6Zx7j@pc638.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 06:57:16PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 10:58:29PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 07:54:12PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > +static void drain_vmap_area(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (mutex_trylock(&vmap_purge_lock)) {
> > > +		__purge_vmap_area_lazy(ULONG_MAX, 0);
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static DECLARE_WORK(drain_vmap_area_work, drain_vmap_area);
> > 
> > Presuambly if the worker fails to get the mutex, it should reschedule
> > itself?  And should it even trylock or just always lock?
> > 
> mutex_trylock() has no sense here. It should just always get the lock.
> Otherwise we can miss the point to purge. Agree with your opinion.
> 
Below the patch that address Matthew's points:

<snip>
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index d2a00ad4e1dd..b82db44fea60 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1717,17 +1717,10 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 	return true;
 }
 
-/*
- * Kick off a purge of the outstanding lazy areas. Don't bother if somebody
- * is already purging.
- */
-static void try_purge_vmap_area_lazy(void)
-{
-	if (mutex_trylock(&vmap_purge_lock)) {
-		__purge_vmap_area_lazy(ULONG_MAX, 0);
-		mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
-	}
-}
+static void purge_vmap_area_lazy(void);
+static void drain_vmap_area(struct work_struct *work);
+static DECLARE_WORK(drain_vmap_area_work, drain_vmap_area);
+static atomic_t drain_vmap_area_work_in_progress;
 
 /*
  * Kick off a purge of the outstanding lazy areas.
@@ -1740,6 +1733,22 @@ static void purge_vmap_area_lazy(void)
 	mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
 }
 
+static void drain_vmap_area(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock);
+	__purge_vmap_area_lazy(ULONG_MAX, 0);
+	mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * Check if rearming is still required. If not, we are
+	 * done and can let a next caller to initiate a new drain.
+	 */
+	if (atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) > lazy_max_pages())
+		schedule_work(&drain_vmap_area_work);
+	else
+		atomic_set(&drain_vmap_area_work_in_progress, 0);
+}
+
 /*
  * Free a vmap area, caller ensuring that the area has been unmapped
  * and flush_cache_vunmap had been called for the correct range
@@ -1766,7 +1775,8 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va)
 
 	/* After this point, we may free va at any time */
 	if (unlikely(nr_lazy > lazy_max_pages()))
-		try_purge_vmap_area_lazy();
+		if (!atomic_xchg(&drain_vmap_area_work_in_progress, 1))
+			schedule_work(&drain_vmap_area_work);
 }
 
 /*
<snip>

Manfred, could you please have a look and if you have a time test it?
I mean if it solves your issue. You can take over this patch and resend
it, otherwise i can send it myself later if we all agree with it.

--
Vlad Rezki