From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932190AbdBHP7E (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:59:04 -0500
Received: from outbound-smtp05.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.38]:48245 "EHLO
        outbound-smtp05.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753259AbdBHP7D (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:59:03 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:12:26 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe
 requests -fix
Message-ID: <20170208151226.rctwvaqwkgjpbzzn@techsingularity.net>
References: <20170208143128.25ahymqlyspjcixu@techsingularity.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081550440.3536@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081550440.3536@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > preempt_enable_no_resched() was used based on review feedback that had no
> > strong objection at the time. It avoided introducing a preemption point
> > where one didn't exist before which was marginal at best.
> 
> Actually local_irq_enable() _IS_ a preemption point, indirect but still:
> 
>    local_irq_disable()
>    ....
> --> HW interrupt is raised
>    ....
>    local_irq_enable()
> 
>    handle_irq()
> 	set_need_resched()
>    ret_from_irq()
>      preempt()
> 
> while with preempt_disable that looks like this:
> 
>    preempt_disable()
>    ....
> --> HW interrupt is raised
>    handle_irq()
> 	set_need_resched()
>    ret_from_irq()
>    ....
>    preempt_enable()
>       preempt()
> 
> Now if you use preempt_enable_no_resched() then you miss the preemption and
> depending on the actual code path you might run something which takes ages
> without hitting a preemption point after that.
> 

Thanks for the education, I had missed it. The changelog should have been
"fix a dumb mistake and stick to preempt_enable".  Assuming Andrew picks
this patch up, it'll be folded into the patch that introduced the problem
in the first place and will the broken usage will never hit mainline.

> It's not only a problem for RT. It's also in mainline a violation of the
> preemption mechanism.
> 

Understood, thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs