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 AEC83C433F5 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6053960E93 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 6053960E93 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DAB016B0088; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D34386B008C; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BD4F36B0093; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0174.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1886B0088 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6457C184C077B for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78790483212.15.05C0720 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03CD9001AB1 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7037021639; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1636488604; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lRosq4IEc3vzV1AepmH5jntOjodFoOJx31yQM2dMSH4=; b=OalPnZ8BgGymwMmDUxlG6/MtLgcCXS+5oyL6Iq1AmWHTFUV2cyE8uwZQwEqF7qCP5jwNYS 6ZDedyCTV70VsOCkgzq2YZX4FNUrO23obCUnilfIpJr16s1/bCsTNCmVUucmdf6FOO/yOV zAWraPWz2E4+F2BGKzTWoScZwfxY3pg= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9DBA3B81; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 21:10:02 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Suren Baghdasaryan 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: prevent a race between process_mrelease and exit_mmap Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B03CD9001AB1 X-Stat-Signature: 199q8kxgyiaiyd48bhu36ffabbawprsb Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=OalPnZ8B; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-HE-Tag: 1636488605-712694 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 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. > 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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs