From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755739AbeDYQEZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:04:25 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:48418 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754954AbeDYQER (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:04:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:04:13 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Eric Dumazet , "David S . Miller" , netdev , Andy Lutomirski , linux-kernel , linux-mm , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: add TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE support for zerocopy receive Message-ID: <20180425160413.GC8546@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180425052722.73022-1-edumazet@google.com> <20180425052722.73022-2-edumazet@google.com> <20180425062859.GA23914@infradead.org> <5cd31eba-63b5-9160-0a2e-f441340df0d3@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5cd31eba-63b5-9160-0a2e-f441340df0d3@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 06:01:02AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On 04/24/2018 11:28 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:27:21PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> When adding tcp mmap() implementation, I forgot that socket lock > >> had to be taken before current->mm->mmap_sem. syzbot eventually caught > >> the bug. > >> > >> Since we can not lock the socket in tcp mmap() handler we have to > >> split the operation in two phases. > >> > >> 1) mmap() on a tcp socket simply reserves VMA space, and nothing else. > >> This operation does not involve any TCP locking. > >> > >> 2) setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE, ...) implements > >> the transfert of pages from skbs to one VMA. > >> This operation only uses down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem) after > >> holding TCP lock, thus solving the lockdep issue. > >> > >> This new implementation was suggested by Andy Lutomirski with great details. > > > > Thanks, this looks much more sensible to me. > > > > Thanks Christoph > > Note the high cost of zap_page_range(), needed to avoid -EBUSY being returned > from vm_insert_page() the second time TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE is used on one VMA. > > Ideally a vm_replace_page() would avoid this cost ? If you don't zap the page range, any of the CPUs in the system where any thread in this task have ever run may have a TLB entry pointing to this page ... if the page is being recycled into the page allocator, then that page might end up as a slab page or page table or page cache while the other CPU still have access to it. You could hang onto the page until you've built up a sufficiently large batch, then bulk-invalidate all of the TLB entries, but we start to get into weirdnesses on different CPU architectures.