From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, lokeshgidra@google.com,
aarcange@redhat.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com,
david@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, willy@infradead.org,
lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, hughd@google.com, jannh@google.com,
kaleshsingh@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] userfaultfd: do not block on locking a large folio with raised refcount
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:23:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ow7clyrac62xam6u2saasghgfky44yso7uldq2qqilapnp5ojv@rlx2cra3zk7r> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250226185510.2732648-2-surenb@google.com>
* Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> [250226 13:55]:
> Lokesh recently raised an issue about UFFDIO_MOVE getting into a deadlock
> state when it goes into split_folio() with raised folio refcount.
> split_folio() expects the reference count to be exactly
> mapcount + num_pages_in_folio + 1 (see can_split_folio()) and fails with
> EAGAIN otherwise. If multiple processes are trying to move the same
> large folio, they raise the refcount (all tasks succeed in that) then
> one of them succeeds in locking the folio, while others will block in
> folio_lock() while keeping the refcount raised. The winner of this
> race will proceed with calling split_folio() and will fail returning
> EAGAIN to the caller and unlocking the folio. The next competing process
> will get the folio locked and will go through the same flow. In the
> meantime the original winner will be retried and will block in
> folio_lock(), getting into the queue of waiting processes only to repeat
> the same path. All this results in a livelock.
> An easy fix would be to avoid waiting for the folio lock while holding
> folio refcount, similar to madvise_free_huge_pmd() where folio lock is
> acquired before raising the folio refcount. Since we lock and take a
> refcount of the folio while holding the PTE lock, changing the order of
> these operations should not break anything.
> Modify move_pages_pte() to try locking the folio first and if that fails
> and the folio is large then return EAGAIN without touching the folio
> refcount. If the folio is single-page then split_folio() is not called,
> so we don't have this issue.
> Lokesh has a reproducer [1] and I verified that this change fixes the
> issue.
>
> [1] https://github.com/lokeshgidra/uffd_move_ioctl_deadlock
>
> Fixes: adef440691ba ("userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI")
> Reported-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>
> ---
> Note this patch is v2 of [2] but I did not bump up the version because now
> it's part of the patchset which is at its v1. Hopefully that's not too
> confusing.
>
> Changes since v1 [2]:
> - Rebased over mm-hotfixes-unstable to avoid merge conflicts with [3]
> - Added Reviewed-by, per Peter Xu
> - Added a note about PTL lock in the changelog, per Liam R. Howlett
> - CC'ed stable
>
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250225204613.2316092-1-surenb@google.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250226003234.0B98FC4CEDD@smtp.kernel.org/
>
> mm/userfaultfd.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> index 8eae4ea3cafd..e0f1e38ac5d8 100644
> --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1250,6 +1250,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> */
> if (!src_folio) {
> struct folio *folio;
> + bool locked;
>
> /*
> * Pin the page while holding the lock to be sure the
> @@ -1269,12 +1270,26 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + locked = folio_trylock(folio);
> + /*
> + * We avoid waiting for folio lock with a raised refcount
> + * for large folios because extra refcounts will result in
> + * split_folio() failing later and retrying. If multiple
> + * tasks are trying to move a large folio we can end
> + * livelocking.
> + */
> + if (!locked && folio_test_large(folio)) {
> + spin_unlock(src_ptl);
> + err = -EAGAIN;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> folio_get(folio);
> src_folio = folio;
> src_folio_pte = orig_src_pte;
> spin_unlock(src_ptl);
>
> - if (!folio_trylock(src_folio)) {
> + if (!locked) {
> pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte);
> pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte);
> src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
> --
> 2.48.1.658.g4767266eb4-goog
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-26 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-26 18:55 [PATCH 0/2] move_pages_pte() fixes Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-02-26 18:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] userfaultfd: do not block on locking a large folio with raised refcount Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-02-26 20:23 ` Liam R. Howlett [this message]
2025-02-26 18:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: fix PTE unmapping stack-allocated PTE copies Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-02-26 20:43 ` Peter Xu
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=ow7clyrac62xam6u2saasghgfky44yso7uldq2qqilapnp5ojv@rlx2cra3zk7r \
--to=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kaleshsingh@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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