LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:46:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d2fecab7-6e34-551f-7033-2a5df0dc5e5b@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55ac947f-fd77-3754-ebfe-30d458c54403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>



On 3/22/18 9:18 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
> On 22/03/2018 17:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:54:52PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2018 16:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:32:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> Regarding the page fault, why not relying on the PTE locking ?
>>>>>
>>>>> When munmap() will unset the PTE it will have to held the PTE lock, so this
>>>>> will serialize the access.
>>>>> If the page fault occurs before the mmap(MAP_FIXED), the page mapped will be
>>>>> removed when mmap(MAP_FIXED) would do the cleanup. Fair enough.
>>>> The page fault handler will walk the VMA tree to find the correct
>>>> VMA and then find that the VMA is marked as deleted.  If it assumes
>>>> that the VMA has been deleted because of munmap(), then it can raise
>>>> SIGSEGV immediately.  But if the VMA is marked as deleted because of
>>>> mmap(MAP_FIXED), it must wait until the new VMA is in place.
>>> I'm wondering if such a complexity is required.
>>> If the user space process try to access the page being overwritten through
>>> mmap(MAP_FIXED) by another thread, there is no guarantee that it will
>>> manipulate the *old* page or *new* one.
>> Right; but it must return one or the other, it can't segfault.
> Good point, I missed that...
>
>>> I'd think this is up to the user process to handle that concurrency.
>>> What needs to be guaranteed is that once mmap(MAP_FIXED) returns the old page
>>> are no more there, which is done through the mmap_sem and PTE locking.
>> Yes, and allowing the fault handler to return the *old* page risks the
>> old page being reinserted into the page tables after the unmapping task
>> has done its work.
> The PTE locking should prevent that.
>
>> It's *really* rare to page-fault on a VMA which is in the middle of
>> being replaced.  Why are you trying to optimise it?
> I was not trying to optimize it, but to not wait in the page fault handler.
> This could become tricky in the case the VMA is removed once mmap(MAP_FIXED) is
> done and before the waiting page fault got woken up. This means that the
> removed VMA structure will have to remain until all the waiters are woken up
> which implies ref_count or similar.

We may not need ref_count. After removing "locked-for-deletion" vmas 
when mmap(MAP_FIXED) is done, just wake up page fault to re-lookup vma, 
then it will find the new vma installed by mmap(MAP_FIXED), right?

I'm not sure if completion can do this or not since I'm not quite 
familiar with it :-(

Yang

>
>>>> I think I was wrong to describe VMAs as being *deleted*.  I think we
>>>> instead need the concept of a *locked* VMA that page faults will block on.
>>>> Conceptually, it's a per-VMA rwsem, but I'd use a completion instead of
>>>> an rwsem since the only reason to write-lock the VMA is because it is
>>>> being deleted.
>>> Such a lock would only makes sense in the case of mmap(MAP_FIXED) since when
>>> the VMA is removed there is no need to wait. Isn't it ?
>> I can't think of another reason.  I suppose we could mark the VMA as
>> locked-for-deletion or locked-for-replacement and have the SIGSEGV happen
>> early.  But I'm not sure that optimising for SIGSEGVs is a worthwhile
>> use of our time.  Just always have the pagefault sleep for a deleted VMA.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-22 16:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-20 21:31 [RFC PATCH 0/8] Drop mmap_sem during unmapping large map Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section Yang Shi
2018-03-21 13:08   ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 16:31     ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 17:29       ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-21 21:45         ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 22:15           ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-21 22:40             ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 22:46           ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 15:32             ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 15:40               ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 15:54                 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:05                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:18                     ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:46                       ` Yang Shi [this message]
2018-03-23 13:03                         ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:51                       ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:49                     ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 17:34         ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 18:48           ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-24 18:24         ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 13:14   ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 16:50     ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 17:16       ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 21:23         ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 22:36           ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22  9:10             ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 16:06               ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 16:12                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 16:13                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:28                   ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:36                     ` David Laight
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] mm: mmap: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap() call sites Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] mm: mremap: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap() Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: nommu: add " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] ipc: shm: pass " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] fs: proc/vmcore: " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] x86: mpx: " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 22:35   ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-21 16:53     ` Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] x86: vma: " Yang Shi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d2fecab7-6e34-551f-7033-2a5df0dc5e5b@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).