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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AE9C433F5 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB866187A for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:49:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 4FB866187A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 562AA6B00BD; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:49:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4EB1A6B00BF; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:49:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 38B9E6B00C0; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:49:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0035.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A766B00BD for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:49:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13A01850E7D3 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:49:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78794968098.29.AE8A437 Received: from mail-yb1-f170.google.com (mail-yb1-f170.google.com [209.85.219.170]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6AA3000106 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-f170.google.com with SMTP id v7so11299032ybq.0 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:49:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i1s9PkiERHgtuRIYjlT0cC/lRcZ1Ijv9dEf4nsTsVJ8=; b=VltbIgLFxDPzIAW2CmTfeHSs7ehAUsviU5Q1FD60b6AjC51mqJMt2X+Hz2+AvTfZTG pm/chewIr4uLrNTj70XrevyFEoA1TVPPhnlzdHy8Al02DbtKWnABw9Xr9pl6DDD0hL2r zuR+MYXTU+IreVRs7YEhcPZ0SdMxfYK4A00ko0GkvoCCLA/gWCbPUOBLFFIYX2GUybqb XL146uOQkZ76dMPTZquuYvfcW3tzI9mHvfEhIa5cmaUnP65nKH+Cx7G+5KfOM3frlkqb dPQbvGlbLZSvQLkXIOeBXihr9gOVtYliIljlnvRUSAKAWec/K1g+2+dHMecLrar644n/ jkGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i1s9PkiERHgtuRIYjlT0cC/lRcZ1Ijv9dEf4nsTsVJ8=; b=nXp9SzlpsKEPoGCxivkiFkAd0oT/YvK35gaifVCNSEz75iu2pWd5+RFvqTbe1dwTi7 38c8IQ7nbsJzTwHkymfcaS5A6xI3sIIayEpuAoUF7lAyfBhLPxIVNB2R0oPO34FZJycC UIy4FoVu4XEpeynQbM5RCiIzg99MSdqKqVCWyViQJPjb19Jie6OtJsMk/8/rvvcq4CsN CMPf5V5onJIbG5pE6g0Ayq3uAZEqyu6focEFmVzLy3YZEe5fNpHTfHxIe/8885s2Nwh7 nXm/fogkxBoY4Wmh4eNilvPCYKGOsDAK3/IoGCUtvVgCyqos4N1VqRx8e/CK/fkCDvuw QmFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/coAxbTPvQmcsc3boS2aPWGVmHo9MYOfOCmBBZKd+ylDGrlDm DPrC2oD+Mru32jSg9ApNoHx3hQzSIwsdLDdbvGMgEg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgZTY6W7XHkwpQfbf+hVyqBDB8aB3GEphK/+RWg874X6qi8/vaVjIpK0gxgnSgTo/tUlDmHDN1y/4iHwzvpYQ= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae12:: with SMTP id a18mr4071732ybj.412.1636595388273; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:49:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:49:37 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: prevent a race between process_mrelease and exit_mmap To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christian Brauner , Christoph Hellwig , Oleg Nesterov , David Hildenbrand , Jann Horn , Shakeel Butt , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Brauner , Florian Weimer , Jan Engelhardt , Linux API , linux-mm , LKML , kernel-team , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrea Arcangeli Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5D6AA3000106 X-Stat-Signature: 9iyaxfwr61xxwbrc1dik4wfidumy31ye Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=VltbIgLF; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of surenb@google.com designates 209.85.219.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=surenb@google.com X-HE-Tag: 1636595389-6472 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 Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:10 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:10 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 09-11-21 12:02:37, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:50 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue 09-11-21 11:37:06, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:26 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue 09-11-21 11:01:02, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Discussing how the patch I want to post works for maple trees that > > > > > > > Matthew is working on, I've got a question: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC, according to Michal's post here: > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20170725154514.GN26723@dhcp22.suse.cz, > > > > > > > unmap_vmas() can race with other mmap_lock read holders (including > > > > > > > oom_reap_task_mm()) with no issues. > > > > > > > Maple tree patchset requires rcu read lock or the mmap semaphore be > > > > > > > held (read or write side) when walking the tree, including inside > > > > > > > unmap_vmas(). When asked, he told me that he is not sure why it's > > > > > > > currently "safe" to walk the vma->vm_next list in unmap_vmas() while > > > > > > > another thread is reaping the mm. > > > > > > > Michal (or maybe someone else), could you please clarify why > > > > > > > unmap_vmas() can safely race with oom_reap_task_mm()? Or maybe my > > > > > > > understanding was wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot really comment on the mapple tree part. But the existing > > > > > > synchronization between oom reaper and exit_mmap is based on > > > > > > - oom_reaper takes mmap_sem for reading > > > > > > - exit_mmap sets MMF_OOM_SKIP and takes the exclusive mmap_sem before > > > > > > unmap_vmas. > > > > > > > > > > > > The oom_reaper therefore can either unmap the address space if the lock > > > > > > is taken before exit_mmap or it would it would bale out on MMF_OOM_SKIP > > > > > > if it takes the lock afterwards. So the reaper cannot race with > > > > > > unmap_vmas. > > > > > > > > > > I see. So, it's the combination of MMF_OOM_SKIP and mmap_lock working > > > > > as a barrier which prevent them from racing with each other... > > > > > I wasn't sure how > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20170724072332.31903-1-mhocko@kernel.org/ > > > > > was implementing this synchronization because it would take mmap_sem > > > > > write side after unmap_vmas() and IIUC there was no > > > > > "mmap_lock_write(); mmap_unlock_write();" sequence in exit_mmap at > > > > > that time. I'll need to checkout the old sources to figure this out. > > > > > > > > My memory is rather dimm but AFAIR the main problem was freeing page > > > > tables and freeing vmas not unmap_vmas. That one was no modifying the > > > > vma list. Essentially it was just a slightly modified madvise don't > > > > need. So that part was allowed to race with oom_reaper. > > > > > > So, both unmap_vmas and __oom_reap_task_mm do not modify vma list and > > > therefore can execute concurrently. That makes sense, thanks. > > > > Yes, those can run concurrently. One thing I completely forgot about is > > 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3") > > which is about interaction with the munlock. Agrh! This interaction with the munlock you mentioned requires us to take mmap_write_lock before munlock_vma_pages_all and that prevents __oom_reap_task_mm from running concurrently with unmap_vmas. The reapers would not be as effective as they are now after such a change :( > > Thanks for pointing it out. IIUC, ideally we want to get rid of all > these special cases and replace them with proper locking. If so, I'll > see what I can do here. > > > > > > Then I guess, if we want to be semantically correct in exit_mmap(), we > > > would have to take mmap_read_lock before unmap_vmas, then drop it and > > > take mmap_write_lock before free_pgtables. > > > > I think it would be just more straightforward to take the exclusive lock > > for the whole operation. > > Ok, but note that this will prevent concurrent memory reaping, so will > likely affect the speed at which memory is released during oom-kill. I > saw measurable difference when testing process_mrelease placing > mmap_write_lock before vs after unmap_vmas. If we take mmap_read_lock > before unmap_vmas and mmap_write_lock after it, then there won't be > such issue. You indicated that the speed of memory release should not > be the deciding factor here but I want to make it clear before > proceeding. > Thanks, > Suren. > > > -- > > Michal Hocko > > SUSE Labs