linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mremap: use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:15:36 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwm8MgLi3pDMOQr2gvmjRKXeSjsmV2kLYSYZHFiUa_0fQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161128084012.GC21738@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> As suggested by Linus, the same mmu gather logic could be used for tlb
> flush in mremap and this patch just did that.

Ok, looking at this patch, I still think it looks like the right thing
to do, but I'm admittedly rather less certain of it.

The main advantage of the mmu_gather thing is that it automatically
takes care of the TLB flush ranges for us, and that's a big deal
during munmap() (where the actual unmapped page range can be _very_
different from the total range), but now that I notice that this
doesn't actually remove any other code (in fact, it adds a line), I'm
wondering if it's worth it. mremap() is already "dense" in the vma
space, unlike munmap (ie you can't move multiple vma's with a single
mremap), so the fancy range optimizations that make a difference on
some architectures aren't much of an issue.

So I guess the MM people should take a look at this and say whether
they think the current state is fine or whether we should do the
mmu_gather thing. People?

However, I also independently think I found an actual bug while
looking at the code as part of looking at the patch.

This part looks racy:

                /*
                 * We are remapping a dirty PTE, make sure to
                 * flush TLB before we drop the PTL for the
                 * old PTE or we may race with page_mkclean().
                 */
                if (pte_present(*old_pte) && pte_dirty(*old_pte))
                        force_flush = true;
                pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, old_addr, old_pte);

where the issue is that another thread might make the pte be dirty (in
the hardware walker, so no locking of ours make any difference)
*after* we checked whether it was dirty, but *before* we removed it
from the page tables.

So I think the "check for force-flush" needs to come *after*, and we should do

                pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, old_addr, old_pte);
                if (pte_present(pte) && pte_dirty(pte))
                        force_flush = true;

instead.

This happens for the pmd case too.

So now I'm not sure the mmu_gather thing is worth it, but I'm pretty
sure that there remains a (very very) small race that wasn't fixed by
the original fix in commit 5d1904204c99 ("mremap: fix race between
mremap() and page cleanning").

Aaron, sorry for waffling about this, and asking you to look at a
completely different issue instead.

                 Linus

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-28 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-10  9:16 [PATCH] mremap: fix race between mremap() and page cleanning Aaron Lu
2016-11-17  7:45 ` Aaron Lu
2016-11-17 17:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-11-18  2:48   ` Aaron Lu
2016-11-28  8:37     ` [PATCH 0/2] use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap Aaron Lu
2016-11-28  8:39       ` [PATCH 1/2] tlb: export tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly Aaron Lu
2016-11-28  8:40       ` [PATCH 2/2] mremap: use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap Aaron Lu
2016-11-28 17:15         ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2016-11-29  2:57           ` [PATCH] mremap: move_ptes: check pte dirty after its removal Aaron Lu
2016-11-29  3:06             ` Linus Torvalds
2016-11-29  3:22               ` Aaron Lu
2016-11-29  5:27               ` [PATCH update] " Aaron Lu
2016-11-28 17:32         ` [PATCH 2/2] mremap: use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap Dave Hansen
2016-11-28 17:42           ` Linus Torvalds

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=CA+55aFwm8MgLi3pDMOQr2gvmjRKXeSjsmV2kLYSYZHFiUa_0fQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox