Re: [RFC v6 PATCH 2/2] mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap

[Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 8/6/18 1:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 06-08-18 13:48:35, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 8/6/18 1:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 06-08-18 09:46:30, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/18 2:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Fri 03-08-18 14:01:58, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/18 2:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri 27-07-18 02:10:14, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> If the vma has VM_LOCKED | VM_HUGETLB | VM_PFNMAP or uprobe, they are
>>>>>>>> considered as special mappings. They will be dealt with before zapping
>>>>>>>> pages with write mmap_sem held. Basically, just update vm_flags.
>>>>>>> Well, I think it would be safer to simply fallback to the current
>>>>>>> implementation with these mappings and deal with them on top. This would
>>>>>>> make potential issues easier to bisect and partial reverts as well.
>>>>>> Do you mean just call do_munmap()? It sounds ok. Although we may waste some
>>>>>> cycles to repeat what has done, it sounds not too bad since those special
>>>>>> mappings should be not very common.
>>>>> VM_HUGETLB is quite spread. Especially for DB workloads.
>>>> Wait a minute. In this way, it sounds we go back to my old implementation
>>>> with special handling for those mappings with write mmap_sem held, right?
>>> Yes, I would really start simple and add further enhacements on top.
>> If updating vm_flags with read lock is safe in this case, we don't have to
>> do this. The only reason for this special handling is about vm_flags update.
>   
> Yes, maybe you are right that this is safe. I would still argue to have
> it in a separate patch for easier review, bisectability etc...

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused. Do you mean I should have the patch 
*without* handling the special case (just like to assume it is safe to 
update vm_flags with read lock), then have the other patch on top of it, 
which simply calls do_munmap() to deal with the special cases?

>