mm: mempolicy: Convert shared_policy mutex to spinlock

Mel Gorman · torvalds · commit 42288fe366c4 · 2013-01-02T17:32:13.000-08:00
Sasha was fuzzing with trinity and reported the following problem: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6361, name: trinity-main 2 locks held by trinity-main/6361: #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810aa314>] __do_page_fault+0x1e4/0x4f0 #1: (&(&mm->page_table_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8122f017>] handle_pte_fault+0x3f7/0x6a0 Pid: 6361, comm: trinity-main Tainted: G W 3.7.0-rc2-next-20121024-sasha-00001-gd95ef01-dirty torvalds#74 Call Trace: __might_sleep+0x1c3/0x1e0 mutex_lock_nested+0x29/0x50 mpol_shared_policy_lookup+0x2e/0x90 shmem_get_policy+0x2e/0x30 get_vma_policy+0x5a/0xa0 mpol_misplaced+0x41/0x1d0 handle_pte_fault+0x465/0x6a0 This was triggered by a different version of automatic NUMA balancing but in theory the current version is vunerable to the same problem. do_numa_page -> numa_migrate_prep -> mpol_misplaced -> get_vma_policy -> shmem_get_policy It's very unlikely this will happen as shared pages are not marked pte_numa -- see the page_mapcount() check in change_pte_range() -- but it is possible. To address this, this patch restores sp->lock as originally implemented by Kosaki Motohiro. In the path where get_vma_policy() is called, it should not be calling sp_alloc() so it is not necessary to treat the PTL specially. Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Tested-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ struct sp_node {
 
 struct shared_policy {
 	struct rb_root root;
-	struct mutex mutex;
+	spinlock_t lock;
 };
 
 void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol);
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2132,7 +2132,7 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
  */
 
 /* lookup first element intersecting start-end */
-/* Caller holds sp->mutex */
+/* Caller holds sp->lock */
 static struct sp_node *
 sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 {
@@ -2196,13 +2196,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
 
 	if (!sp->root.rb_node)
 		return NULL;
-	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
+	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
 	sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
 	if (sn) {
 		mpol_get(sn->policy);
 		pol = sn->policy;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
+	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	return pol;
 }
 
@@ -2328,6 +2328,14 @@ static void sp_delete(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *n)
 	sp_free(n);
 }
 
+static void sp_node_init(struct sp_node *node, unsigned long start,
+			unsigned long end, struct mempolicy *pol)
+{
+	node->start = start;
+	node->end = end;
+	node->policy = pol;
+}
+
 static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
 				struct mempolicy *pol)
 {
@@ -2344,10 +2352,7 @@ static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
 		return NULL;
 	}
 	newpol->flags |= MPOL_F_SHARED;
-
-	n->start = start;
-	n->end = end;
-	n->policy = newpol;
+	sp_node_init(n, start, end, newpol);
 
 	return n;
 }
@@ -2357,9 +2362,12 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 				 unsigned long end, struct sp_node *new)
 {
 	struct sp_node *n;
+	struct sp_node *n_new = NULL;
+	struct mempolicy *mpol_new = NULL;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
+restart:
+	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
 	n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end);
 	/* Take care of old policies in the same range. */
 	while (n && n->start < end) {
@@ -2372,14 +2380,16 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 		} else {
 			/* Old policy spanning whole new range. */
 			if (n->end > end) {
-				struct sp_node *new2;
-				new2 = sp_alloc(end, n->end, n->policy);
-				if (!new2) {
-					ret = -ENOMEM;
-					goto out;
-				}
+				if (!n_new)
+					goto alloc_new;
+
+				*mpol_new = *n->policy;
+				atomic_set(&mpol_new->refcnt, 1);
+				sp_node_init(n_new, n->end, end, mpol_new);
+				sp_insert(sp, n_new);
 				n->end = start;
-				sp_insert(sp, new2);
+				n_new = NULL;
+				mpol_new = NULL;
 				break;
 			} else
 				n->end = start;
@@ -2390,9 +2400,27 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 	}
 	if (new)
 		sp_insert(sp, new);
-out:
-	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
+	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	ret = 0;
+
+err_out:
+	if (mpol_new)
+		mpol_put(mpol_new);
+	if (n_new)
+		kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n_new);
+
 	return ret;
+
+alloc_new:
+	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	ret = -ENOMEM;
+	n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!n_new)
+		goto err_out;
+	mpol_new = kmem_cache_alloc(policy_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!mpol_new)
+		goto err_out;
+	goto restart;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -2410,7 +2438,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
 	int ret;
 
 	sp->root = RB_ROOT;		/* empty tree == default mempolicy */
-	mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
+	spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
 
 	if (mpol) {
 		struct vm_area_struct pvma;
@@ -2476,14 +2504,14 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
 
 	if (!p->root.rb_node)
 		return;
-	mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
+	spin_lock(&p->lock);
 	next = rb_first(&p->root);
 	while (next) {
 		n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
 		next = rb_next(&n->nd);
 		sp_delete(p, n);
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
+	spin_unlock(&p->lock);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
