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>
next prev parent 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