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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 4799DC10F27 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA3024654 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="SgRU9qNg" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0FA3024654 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9A8916B0008; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 982FD6B000A; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 86CE66B000C; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0163.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.163]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9956B0008 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7C58794 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:51:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76576867500.05.legs00_446b22cc32526 X-HE-Tag: legs00_446b22cc32526 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7411 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:51:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583783469; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gBqSTDKndD2OdkDh1ELxg5TJTFoG+8c4HHMaPUqR/jU=; b=SgRU9qNgydEY4+6IUrQgE41TM2oVTuIuYIXpV5OpSqrwurVO2W5JdPrPQ8CEK26UfG9upV DAGn3GhjftuhDOYoGXG18909ZhnGJRj0glgP64WRl1GE1fwe2zsKtRBnKH0wvjEon9BD8d drxHfFSUQ1OPRKyMhul4fzJ7XVy6ef8= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-191-I7FLgyXjMlqRIzDSqQJzNA-1; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 15:51:05 -0400 X-MC-Unique: I7FLgyXjMlqRIzDSqQJzNA-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id h6so8047668qkj.14 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rq+oYusc+Z0wUjpcAqLin4vzJG/NqgieMaLYChwrgfc=; b=r5zQ5UICLVUoh5/D7CF9+Y+n6PRv2yV3zfddwY0DSw3v3tO8V8vLnwiQ51pM8cuLLz 8IszgjAKc036+Bq7EuU7xE9ThECx6ASbUbp3lkMfAAQ2emV3ecQj3m8um2pBKOeMYDyx YdmJdhjDB3g9lRV7vQfrL0+lLT1mlxrPkgCMOL2oqd5fkQmcdKsElYww3nbUD1UwpbI0 HKTRpgrmiIzm2F/rWezrpETy5mlJaX5b5FMg74yL830WFD8uDA836jkdazGZSNmDDI36 VCbhE1KOZk8QKEkqzhYlKbKw1OB91jo5UGtuv50c6EqkUMYwFB1SMAVeEc8saNrZMNJu mZAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2eezbDx3xC9Do4zIYe3z9DbABNzEt2EYVRshIOPrVBM0dVlbfv SU8Cqq1100KTxcs/zM98tjU+0JKINkp8JrhFueUt5GYdOWjLcJjianzimaUiiJ59GLMjHiF/AmB 4CstD2DgiIks= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7585:: with SMTP id s5mr16046679qtq.339.1583783464838; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtsdpLiFNxSvSNps0MPHiFHF0cHjhwj7d6eDeDTgOttuytFJ0BM2ewUOiaOWVlvms5yZw1Haw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7585:: with SMTP id s5mr16046647qtq.339.1583783464538; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-x1 ([2607:9880:19c0:32::2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g2sm22525948qkb.27.2020.03.09.12.51.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:00 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Martin Cracauer , Linus Torvalds , Mike Rapoport , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Johannes Weiner , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Bobby Powers , Maya Gokhale , Jerome Glisse , Mike Kravetz , Matthew Wilcox , Marty McFadden , Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Brian Geffon , Denis Plotnikov , Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 00/16] mm: Page fault enhancements Message-ID: <20200309195100.GD4206@xz-x1> References: <20200220155353.8676-1-peterx@redhat.com> <1eb7bdd4-348f-da87-47a1-0b022b70e918@redhat.com> <20200307214743.GA4206@xz-x1> <6d8ed084-0740-cee1-663e-a78a2faee432@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6d8ed084-0740-cee1-663e-a78a2faee432@redhat.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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: On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 01:12:34PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > [...] >=20 > > Yes, IIUC the race can happen like this in your below test: > >=20 > > main thread uffd thread disgard thread > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > access page > > uffd page fault > > wait for page > > UFFDIO_ZEROCOPY > > put a page P there > > MADV_DONTNEED on P > > wakeup main thread > > return from fault > > page still missing > > uffd page fault again > > (without ALLOW_RETRY) > > --> SIGBUS. >=20 > Exactly! >=20 > >> Can we please have a way to identify that this "feature" is available? > >> I'd appreciate a new read-only UFFD_FEAT_ , so we can detect this from > >> user space easily and use concurrent discards without crashing our app= lications. > >=20 > > I'm not sure how others think about it, but to me this still fells > > into the bucket of "solving an existing problem" rather than a > > feature. Also note that this should change the behavior for the page > > fault logic in general, rather than an uffd-only change. So I'm also > > not sure whether UFFD_FEAT_* suites here even if we want it. >=20 > So, are we planning on backporting this to stable kernels? I don't have a plan so far. I'm still at the phase to only worry about whether it can be at least merged in master.. :) I would think it won't worth it to backport this to stables though, considering that it could potentially change quite a bit for faulting procedures, and after all the issues we're fixing shouldn't be common to general users. >=20 > Imagine using this in QEMU/KVM to allow discards (e.g., balloon > inflation) while postcopy is active . You certainly don't want random > guest crashes. So either, we treat this as a fix (and backport) or as a > change in behavior/feature. I think we don't need to worry on that - QEMU will prohibit ballooning during postcopy starting from the first day. Feel free to see QEMU commit 371ff5a3f04cd7 ("Inhibit ballooning during postcopy"). >=20 > [...] >=20 > >> > >> 2. What will happen if I don't place a page on a pagefault, but only d= o a UFFDIO_WAKE? > >> For now we were able to trigger a signal this way. > >=20 > > If I'm not mistaken the UFFDIO_WAKE will directly trigger the sigbus > > even without the help of the MADV_DONTNEED race. >=20 > Yes, that's the current way of injecting a SIGBUS instead of resolving > the pagefault. And AFAIKs, you're changing that behavior. (I am not > aware of a user, there could be use cases, but somehow it's strange to > get a signal when accessing memory that is mapped READ|WRITE and also > represented like this in e.g., /proc/$PID/maps). So IMHO, only the new > behavior makes really sense. I agree, I'm not sure how other people think on ABI stability, but... for my own preference I don't worry much on ABI breakage for a problem like this. Thanks, --=20 Peter Xu