From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot0-f197.google.com (mail-ot0-f197.google.com [74.125.82.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726316B0003 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:03:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ot0-f197.google.com with SMTP id i18-v6so16229ota.13 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m38si704792qta.396.2018.03.23.06.03.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2ND1XNH070483 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:03:28 -0400 Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.111]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gw11e3ap5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:03:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:03:24 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section References: <1521581486-99134-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1521581486-99134-2-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20180321130833.GM23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180321172932.GE4780@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180321224631.GB3969@bombadil.infradead.org> <18a727fd-f006-9fae-d9ca-74b9004f0a8b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180322154055.GB28468@bombadil.infradead.org> <0442fb0e-3da3-3f23-ce4d-0f6cbc3eac9a@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180322160547.GC28468@bombadil.infradead.org> <55ac947f-fd77-3754-ebfe-30d458c54403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Laurent Dufour Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:03:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox Cc: Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/03/2018 17:46, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On 3/22/18 9:18 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> >> On 22/03/2018 17:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:54:52PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>> On 22/03/2018 16:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:32:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>>>> Regarding the page fault, why not relying on the PTE locking ? >>>>>> >>>>>> When munmap() will unset the PTE it will have to held the PTE lock, so this >>>>>> will serialize the access. >>>>>> If the page fault occurs before the mmap(MAP_FIXED), the page mapped will be >>>>>> removed when mmap(MAP_FIXED) would do the cleanup. Fair enough. >>>>> The page fault handler will walk the VMA tree to find the correct >>>>> VMA and then find that the VMA is marked as deleted.A If it assumes >>>>> that the VMA has been deleted because of munmap(), then it can raise >>>>> SIGSEGV immediately.A But if the VMA is marked as deleted because of >>>>> mmap(MAP_FIXED), it must wait until the new VMA is in place. >>>> I'm wondering if such a complexity is required. >>>> If the user space process try to access the page being overwritten through >>>> mmap(MAP_FIXED) by another thread, there is no guarantee that it will >>>> manipulate the *old* page or *new* one. >>> Right; but it must return one or the other, it can't segfault. >> Good point, I missed that... >> >>>> I'd think this is up to the user process to handle that concurrency. >>>> What needs to be guaranteed is that once mmap(MAP_FIXED) returns the old page >>>> are no more there, which is done through the mmap_sem and PTE locking. >>> Yes, and allowing the fault handler to return the *old* page risks the >>> old page being reinserted into the page tables after the unmapping task >>> has done its work. >> The PTE locking should prevent that. >> >>> It's *really* rare to page-fault on a VMA which is in the middle of >>> being replaced.A Why are you trying to optimise it? >> I was not trying to optimize it, but to not wait in the page fault handler. >> This could become tricky in the case the VMA is removed once mmap(MAP_FIXED) is >> done and before the waiting page fault got woken up. This means that the >> removed VMA structure will have to remain until all the waiters are woken up >> which implies ref_count or similar. > > We may not need ref_count. After removing "locked-for-deletion" vmas when > mmap(MAP_FIXED) is done, just wake up page fault to re-lookup vma, then it will > find the new vma installed by mmap(MAP_FIXED), right? I do agree, as far as waking up would not require access to the VMA. > I'm not sure if completion can do this or not since I'm not quite familiar with > it :-( I don't know either :/ Laurent. > Yang > >> >>>>> I think I was wrong to describe VMAs as being *deleted*.A I think we >>>>> instead need the concept of a *locked* VMA that page faults will block on. >>>>> Conceptually, it's a per-VMA rwsem, but I'd use a completion instead of >>>>> an rwsem since the only reason to write-lock the VMA is because it is >>>>> being deleted. >>>> Such a lock would only makes sense in the case of mmap(MAP_FIXED) since when >>>> the VMA is removed there is no need to wait. Isn't it ? >>> I can't think of another reason.A I suppose we could mark the VMA as >>> locked-for-deletion or locked-for-replacement and have the SIGSEGV happen >>> early.A But I'm not sure that optimising for SIGSEGVs is a worthwhile >>> use of our time.A Just always have the pagefault sleep for a deleted VMA. > > > >