On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:37:53PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > Hello, David. > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 05:28:23PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:08PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage, > > > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address. > > > This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause > > > faulting thread who is ensured to have enough reserved hugepages > > > to get a SIGBUS signal. > > > > It's not just about reserved pages. The same race can happen > > perfectly well when you're really, truly allocating the last hugepage > > in the system. > > Yes, you are right. > This is a critical comment to this patchset :( > > IIUC, the case you mentioned is about tasks which have a mapping > with MAP_NORESERVE.
Any mapping that doesn't use the reserved pool, not just
MAP_NORESERVE. For example, if a process makes a MAP_PRIVATE mapping,
then fork()s then the mapping is instantiated in the child, that will
not draw from the reserved pool.
> Should we ensure them to allocate the last hugepage?
> They map a region with MAP_NORESERVE, so don't assume that their requests
> always succeed.
If the pages are available, people get cranky if it fails for no
apparent reason, MAP_NORESERVE or not. They get especially cranky if
it sometimes fails and sometimes doesn't due to a race condition.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgp913heWArBC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
