Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] mm/munmap: Replace can_modify_mm with can_modify_vma

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 09:33:06AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 9:24 AM Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 5:16 PM Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 5:18 PM Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We were doing an extra mmap tree traversal just to check if the entire
> > > > range is modifiable. This can be done when we iterate through the VMAs
> > > > instead.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/mmap.c | 11 +----------
> > > >  mm/vma.c  | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> > > >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > index 3af256bacef3..30ae4cb5cec9 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > @@ -1740,16 +1740,7 @@ int do_vma_munmap(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > >                 unsigned long start, unsigned long end, struct list_head *uf,
> > > >                 bool unlock)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > > > -
> > > > -       /*
> > > > -        * Check if memory is sealed, prevent unmapping a sealed VMA.
> > > > -        * can_modify_mm assumes we have acquired the lock on MM.
> > > > -        */
> > > > -       if (unlikely(!can_modify_mm(mm, start, end)))
> > > > -               return -EPERM;
> > > Another approach to improve perf  is to clone the vmi (since it
> > > already point to the first vma), and pass the cloned vmi/vma into
> > > can_modify_mm check, that will remove the cost of re-finding the first
> > > VMA.
> > >
> > > The can_modify_mm then continues from cloned VMI/vma till the end of
> > > address range, there will be some perf cost there.  However,  most
> > > address ranges in the real world are within a single VMA,  in
> > > practice, the perf cost is the same as checking the single VMA, 99.9%
> > > case.
> > >
> > > This will help preserve the nice sealing feature (if one of the vma is
> > > sealed, the entire address range is not modified)
> >
> > Please drop it. No one wants to preserve this. Everyone is in sync
> > when it comes to the solution except you.
>
> Still, this is another option that will very likely address the perf issue.

Nack to your approach. Feel free to send a follow up series replacing
Pedro's with yours for review if you feel differently, and stop stalling
things. Thanks.

>
> -Jeff
>
> >
> > --
> > Pedro