Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:31:02 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, osalvador@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz,
        william.lam@bytedance.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when
 isolating hugetlb pages
Message-Id: <20230313123102.52118e6007f21c45063fbe79@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230313170838.GA3044@monkey>
References: <1bc1c955b03603c4e14f56dfbbef9f637f18dbbd.1678703534.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
        <a24a86fbae09711e61dc4424aa7aebff718e9995.1678703534.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
        <20230313170838.GA3044@monkey>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:08:38 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:

> I suspect holding the lru lock when calling isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page was
> not considered.  However, I wonder if this can really happen in practice?
> 
> Before the code below, there is this:
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * Periodically drop the lock (if held) regardless of its
> 		 * contention, to give chance to IRQs. Abort completely if
> 		 * a fatal signal is pending.
> 		 */
> 		if (!(low_pfn % COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
> 			if (locked) {
> 				unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked, flags);
> 				locked = NULL;
> 			}
> 			...
> 		}
> 
> It would seem that the pfn of a hugetlb page would always be a multiple of
> COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX so we would drop the lock.  However, I am not sure if
> that is ALWAYS true and would prefer something like the code you suggested.
> 
> Did you actually see this deadlock in practice?

Presumably the lack of lockdep reports about this tells us something?