archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>,
	Linux-MM <>,
	 Andrew Morton <>,
	linux-fsdevel <>,
	 Amir Goldstein <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work..
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:44:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201015094344.pmvg2jxrb2bsoanr@box>

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:43 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <> wrote:
> Okay, I see what you propose.
> But I don't think it addresses race with try_to_unmap():

I don't think it needs to.

Remember: the map_pages() thing is called only for when the page
tables are empty.

So try_to_unmap() will never see the pte entry, and there is nothing
to race with.

So sure, it can "race" with try_to_unmap like you say, but who cares?
The "race" is no different from taking the page lock _after_
try_to_unmap() already ran (and didn't see anything because the page
hadn't been mapped yet).

IOW I don't think try_to_unmap() really matters. The race you outline
can already happen with the "trylock()" - no different from the
trylock just succeeding after the unlock_page().

So you can think of map_pages() as all happening after try_to_unmap()
has already succeeded - and didn't see the new pte that hasn't been
filled in yet.

I do think there is a real race, but it is is with "__remove_mapping()".

That still happens under the page lock, but it doesn't actually
_depend_ on the page lock as far as I can tell. Because I think the
real protection there is that

        if (!page_ref_freeze(page, refcount))
                goto cannot_free;

it that code sees "oh, somebody else has a reference to the page, we
can't remove the mapping".

But it's entirely possible that I don't understand your worry, and I
overlooked something. If so, can you explain using smaller words,
please ;)


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-15 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-13 19:59 [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work Linus Torvalds
2020-10-13 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-14 13:05   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-10-14 16:53     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-14 18:15       ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-15 10:41         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-10-15  9:43       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-10-15 16:44         ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-10-14  5:50 ` Hugh Dickins
     [not found] ` <>
2020-10-15  2:44   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-15 15:16     ` Possible deadlock in fuse write path (Was: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work..) Vivek Goyal
2020-10-15 19:55       ` Vivek Goyal
2020-10-15 21:21         ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-16 10:02           ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-10-16 12:27             ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-20 20:42             ` Vivek Goyal
2020-10-21  7:40               ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-10-21 20:12                 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-10-28 20:29                   ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-02-09 10:01                     ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-02-09 19:09                       ` Vivek Goyal
2020-10-16 18:19           ` Vivek Goyal
2020-10-16 18:24             ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-16 18:24               ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-16 23:03             ` Dave Chinner

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).