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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742B1C4CECD for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:12:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123D3206C2 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="uQ0e1qlj" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 123D3206C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 775C56B026F; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7264C6B0270; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:12:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5EECC6B0271; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:12:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0124.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.124]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6266B026F for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DFF1C180AD805 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:12:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75946265010.25.doll06_12421a018681d X-HE-Tag: doll06_12421a018681d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5338 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com (mail-pf1-f194.google.com [209.85.210.194]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id q21so3214519pfn.11 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:12:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=A6h/rAYj8ixpipAtYZaH/aCKJyb351wYyEtGUwKa5Y4=; b=uQ0e1qljpKw2WpqpenUG8vRq+8dsyU1zbtnmGjn0AKq5CQ4tf2zQ78SVMVZyV1S26j X3SVmyaw/MnXzqjpkjRWb6EpL03KY9O0Ljp0gUFDNoXkUbUw/GIvIrZi/oHdj1A9rqT7 pqCMmMjhwcLVUx7HSmiJtfHO5zJtccfEPsSZbl1CewAW4JagMAn3KjLD4s1S33h4jWtW PkO4MxnZ4XJIDg9HE8zcGgDIL/zbICYYLdSSbpgfxc4G1V6JzAnlUwXKpdT7MFCUr+BZ nT3YcR8YgoD3NB7KZHhrdGBzpuCOC8VrTWGUe6dJaWEyA7TUtng9eNjrdBVmvwxLfDot Ysqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=A6h/rAYj8ixpipAtYZaH/aCKJyb351wYyEtGUwKa5Y4=; b=HVpXtB5sQchVWf2uSsxHpisQglz+OyZg1vY9GMsrRgA1gA6trKN12L0Aji+9Mj8lww SO0vR9Y1VfLOGQyhpRW+EQMKgn9Q/BfF0SAkJ8/r8ImynX1HZo9uDk4+Ppasn1VDL8XP ASckEJFNsJa2yE0jamA9fcgBWq63pd9c652+k3K2S9dJ+KIwNnH0U5GqvLL7nUW97EhK VUSA1Eho8WRreHuIAvJ6enqa4Oa57JYNYm/DXRCEWkJrJvUNZ7BOmK1jxj6uXt+LT2QJ 4MZnjqEVm/xtTGtMrUcWbEiSxzF+NwFG2wB0Q9ULi/n42u/HGQkShbAPbt0rjZ56js0f JWaA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpzpCZxrlAYV9nxC+CglyGpRusa3RZlaCgEF7fHqwbh5weG+5+ 580iQODFEbXsMWGHJU+l4S0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwPYKW/v/nayDnUWmpyvt1/nrtpHtIMbFhGkKh9+DFMevq7rIDjI1MXbl1EZ+ADqYlzYRPozA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c706:: with SMTP id o6mr1039819pjt.56.1568769123957; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:1:3e01:2939:5992:52da]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r30sm4966230pfl.42.2019.09.17.18.12.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:12:00 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Vinayak Menon Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix the race between swapin_readahead and SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO path Message-ID: <20190918011200.GA159757@google.com> References: <1567169011-4748-1-git-send-email-vinmenon@codeaurora.org> <20190909232613.GA39783@google.com> <9df3bb51-2094-c849-8171-dce6784e1e70@codeaurora.org> <20190910175116.GB39783@google.com> <20190912171400.GA119788@google.com> <3a500b81-71bb-54bd-9f2f-ab89ee723879@codeaurora.org> <20190916200555.GA254094@google.com> <4788d556-1b53-8d3e-121c-de2c286bac43@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4788d556-1b53-8d3e-121c-de2c286bac43@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:08:49AM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > > On 9/17/2019 1:35 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Vinayak, > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:35:41PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > >> On 9/12/2019 10:44 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > >>> Hi Vinayak, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:37:23PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > >>> > >>> < snip > > >>> > >>>>>> Can swapcache check be done like below, before taking the SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO path, as an alternative ? > >>>>> With your approach, what prevent below scenario? > >>>>> > >>>>> A B > >>>>> > >>>>> do_swap_page > >>>>> SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO && __swap_count == 1 > >>>> As shrink_page_list is picking the page from LRU and B is trying to read from swap simultaneously, I assume someone had read > >>>> > >>>> the page from swap prior to B, when its swap_count was say 2 (for it to be reclaimed by shrink_page_list now) > >>> It could happen after B saw __swap_count == 1. Think about forking new process. > >>> In that case, swap_count is 2 and the forked process will access the page(it > >>> ends up freeing zram slot but the page would be swap cache. However, B process > >>> doesn't know it). > >> > >> Okay, so when B has read __swap_count == 1, it means that it has taken down_read on mmap_sem in fault path > >> > >> already. This means fork will not be able to proceed which needs to have down_write on parent's mmap_sem ? > >> > > You are exactly right. However, I still believe better option to solve > > the issue is to check swap_count and delte only if swap_count == 1 > > in swap_slot_free_notify because it's zram specific issue and more safe > > without depending other lock scheme. > > > Sure. Let me know if you want me to post a patch for that. > Please post a patch. Thanks, Vinayak!