From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82879C49ED7 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1AE20644 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="GVoyQQcE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3C1AE20644 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CB9986B0003; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C6AF06B0006; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B58FD6B0007; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0050.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6AE6B0003 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 26D78181AC9BA for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:06:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75941864880.19.wine70_34572f870b209 X-HE-Tag: wine70_34572f870b209 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4946 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com (mail-pg1-f194.google.com [209.85.215.194]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id u72so590481pgb.10 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:05:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jAoHdLmfGoP4H1+y+WGIW1MNymglm7bC36smF+jP66k=; b=GVoyQQcEM3ujpX+PRarptkDJZPi8OsofBCdmL1/o1tHkY+m5AuRrFaSQERb+gFMGdX YgMi0Vl2BZ/dsvM6XMNHjXhedAdB+ET7x153YYiLDT3sBKKJojKvOTheB0grsQhdyEE7 TnjcRx9tNdjs0wZRhFPRC52K8PaB2iei0IcYYODO4A1xQWqsfJwkwRe86/ZHPKqkDn4G twZvWWLfutiUIgd6/6tzBmAY4FH4TCv7GoCjAXsXHHFkBeQHu2EWwsHAYaui7vELHq2i iM97i1C04EiHvo3apNJi6yHak8dWTDAR/5OQxr3ajIJPlOwJLtr/0TCGEK99KaY/e6Ty yMpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jAoHdLmfGoP4H1+y+WGIW1MNymglm7bC36smF+jP66k=; b=ZnkSvbtE72/J1HJCyC+8FVMksOqsvYdRqlIfe9ciQg4X/z+jka6ytIz6xsyRvUIScH /8JKzH3PKbfMdS+7prpzB2Xxg7xrI9EM1LkQF5V+LWJMbnAhWGrURQBzVq3CjXfghaAl 7/erAcUdW2bdLOyrNsDPFLSKafdEHyKXoQjvLMFVN88Q9K5FUscn/IPbWSgK5wMdPipS xXYNgsdjqpN6c7Y4nLd/oNy0fVRlk1Rb3TgRHJCljqD4yNClOVRDm+XdIB2iMwEgJGNy bjed52S7diU6By6zvDKI/m2Hh08N14NqTDUmsk8JCphg4mWGPFQVvBPb2eJuKr+Pnyzy enxw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUiCAB0F1O26TLMtAUt31e4S6Rd0ypCJtxeDMggHREqR5HiGq4a /KdcV6N1fFBuEufNGcLy6l8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwsiWoZ3cPMb7sbsUs2sG6Cq98Ms4N4wxnzVs1ll9rWBDMbotE6GnFBB/zDnBB0F32wWJm0Ug== X-Received: by 2002:a63:9557:: with SMTP id t23mr868514pgn.236.1568664358475; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:1:3e01:2939:5992:52da]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c35sm32909182pgl.72.2019.09.16.13.05.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:05:55 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Vinayak Menon Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix the race between swapin_readahead and SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO path Message-ID: <20190916200555.GA254094@google.com> References: <1567169011-4748-1-git-send-email-vinmenon@codeaurora.org> <20190909232613.GA39783@google.com> <9df3bb51-2094-c849-8171-dce6784e1e70@codeaurora.org> <20190910175116.GB39783@google.com> <20190912171400.GA119788@google.com> <3a500b81-71bb-54bd-9f2f-ab89ee723879@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3a500b81-71bb-54bd-9f2f-ab89ee723879@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Vinayak, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:35:41PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > > On 9/12/2019 10:44 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Vinayak, > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:37:23PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > > > > < snip > > > > >>>> Can swapcache check be done like below, before taking the SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO path, as an alternative ? > >>> With your approach, what prevent below scenario? > >>> > >>> A B > >>> > >>> do_swap_page > >>> SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO && __swap_count == 1 > >> > >> As shrink_page_list is picking the page from LRU and B is trying to read from swap simultaneously, I assume someone had read > >> > >> the page from swap prior to B, when its swap_count was say 2 (for it to be reclaimed by shrink_page_list now) > > It could happen after B saw __swap_count == 1. Think about forking new process. > > In that case, swap_count is 2 and the forked process will access the page(it > > ends up freeing zram slot but the page would be swap cache. However, B process > > doesn't know it). > > > Okay, so when B has read __swap_count == 1, it means that it has taken down_read on mmap_sem in fault path > > already. This means fork will not be able to proceed which needs to have down_write on parent's mmap_sem ? > You are exactly right. However, I still believe better option to solve the issue is to check swap_count and delte only if swap_count == 1 in swap_slot_free_notify because it's zram specific issue and more safe without depending other lock scheme.