From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Gavin Guo <gavinguo@igalia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in the faulting path
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 23:47:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEychl8ZkJDG1-5K@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ffeeb3d2-0e45-43d1-b2e1-a55f09b160f5@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:57:23PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> What I meant is:
>
> Assume we have a pagecache page mapped into our page tables R/O (MAP_PRIVATE
> mapping).
>
> During a write fault on such a pagecache page, we end up in
> do_wp_page()->wp_page_copy() we perform the copy via __wp_page_copy_user()
> without the folio lock.
Yes, it would be similar to doing
hugetlb_fault()->hugetlb_no_page() which would map it R/O.
Then, if we write to it, we will go to hugetlb_wp().
Since it is a private mapping, we would only need to lock the folio to
see if we can re-use it (the wp_can_reuse_anon_folio() analog to
hugetlb).
> In wp_page_copy(), we retake the pt lock, to make sure that the page is
> still mapped (pte_same). If the page is no longer mapped, we retry the
> fault.
>
> In that case, we only want to make sure that the folio is still mapped after
> possibly dropping the page table lock in between.
>
> As we are holding an additional folio reference in
> do_wp_page()->wp_page_copy(), the folio cannot get freed concurrently.
>
>
> There is indeed the do_cow_fault() path where we avoid faulting in the
> pagecache page in the first place. So no page table reference, an I can
> understand why we would need the folio lock there.
But do_cow_fault() does take a reference via __do_fault()->filemap_fault().
> Regarding hugetlb_no_page(): I think we could drop the folio lock for a
> pagecache folio after inserting the folio into the page table. Just like
> do_wp_page()->wp_page_copy(), we would have to verify again under PTL if the
> folio is still mapped
>
> ... which we already do through pte_same() checks?
But that is somewhat similar what we do in the generic faulting path.
Assume you fault in a file for a private mapping and do COW.
So, do_pte_missing()->do_fault()->do_cow_fault().
do_cow_fault()->__do_fault() will a) get a reference and b) lock the folio.
And then we will proceed with copying the file to the page we will map privately.
This would be something like hugetlb_fault()->hugetlb_no_page()->hugetlb_wp().
So we have to hold the lock throughout hugetlb_wp() for file pages we are copying
to private mappings.
Now, let us assume you map the file R/O. And after a while you write-fault to it.
In the generic faulting path, that will go through:
do_pte_missing()->do_fault()->do_read_fault()
do_wp_page()->wp_page_copy()
wp_page_copy(), which indeed doesn't hold the lock (but takes a reference).
Maybe it's because it's Friday, but I'm confused as to why
do_pte_missing()->do_fault()->do_cow_fault() holds the lock while do_wp_page() doesn't
although it might the file's page we have to copy.
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-13 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-12 13:46 [PATCH 0/5] Misc rework on hugetlb_fault Oscar Salvador
2025-06-12 13:46 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm,hugetlb: Change mechanism to detect a COW on private mapping Oscar Salvador
2025-06-13 13:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-12 13:46 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in the faulting path Oscar Salvador
2025-06-13 13:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-13 14:23 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-13 19:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-13 21:47 ` Oscar Salvador [this message]
2025-06-14 9:07 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-16 9:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 14:10 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-16 14:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-17 10:03 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-17 11:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-17 12:04 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-17 12:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-17 12:10 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-17 12:50 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-17 13:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-17 14:00 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-19 11:52 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-12 13:46 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm,hugetlb: Conver anon_rmap into boolean Oscar Salvador
2025-06-13 13:48 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-12 13:47 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm,hugetlb: Drop obsolete comment about non-present pte and second faults Oscar Salvador
2025-06-12 13:47 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm,hugetlb: Drop unlikelys from hugetlb_fault Oscar Salvador
2025-06-13 8:55 ` [PATCH 0/5] Misc rework on hugetlb_fault Oscar Salvador
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=aEychl8ZkJDG1-5K@localhost.localdomain \
--to=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gavinguo@igalia.com \
--cc=jthoughton@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=peterx@redhat.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