From: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: "Muhammad Usama Anjum" <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Michał Mirosław" <emmir@google.com>,
"Andrei Vagin" <avagin@gmail.com>,
"Danylo Mocherniuk" <mdanylo@google.com>,
"Paul Gofman" <pgofman@codeweavers.com>,
"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
"Nadav Amit" <namit@vmware.com>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Yang Shi" <shy828301@gmail.com>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
"Yun Zhou" <yun.zhou@windriver.com>,
"Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>,
"Alex Sierra" <alex.sierra@amd.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Pasha Tatashin" <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
"Axel Rasmussen" <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
"Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/7] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and optionally clear info about PTEs
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:17:10 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1947fb8d-a307-ac47-a66b-d2dcdce9e850@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZBIiSwmbOsuaImIf@x1n>
On 3/16/23 12:53 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 09:54:40PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>> On 3/15/23 8:55 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 06:57:15PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>>> + for (addr = start; !ret && addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>> + pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>>> +
>>>> + is_writ = !is_pte_uffd_wp(*pte);
>>>> + is_file = vma->vm_file;
>>>> + is_pres = pte_present(*pte);
>>>> + is_swap = is_swap_pte(*pte);
>>>> +
>>>> + pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = pagemap_scan_output(is_writ, is_file, is_pres, is_swap,
>>>> + p, addr, 1);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + break;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (PM_SCAN_OP_IS_WP(p) && is_writ &&
>>>> + uffd_wp_range(walk->mm, vma, addr, PAGE_SIZE, true) < 0)
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> This is not real atomic..
>>>
>>> Taking the spinlock for eacy pte is not only overkill but wrong in
>>> atomicity because the pte can change right after spinlock unlocked.
>> Let me explain. It seems like wrong, but it isn't. In my rigorous testing,
>> it didn't show any side-effect. Here we are finding out if a page is
>> written. If page is written, only then we clear it. Lets look at the
>> different possibilities here:
>> - If a page isn't written, we'll not clear it.
>> - If a page is written and there isn't any race, we'll clear written-to
>> flag by write protecting it.
>> - If a page is written but before clearing it, data is written again to the
>> page. The page would remain written and we'll clear it.
>> - If a page is written but before clearing it, it gets write protected,
>> we'll still write protected it. There is double right protection here, but
>> no side-effect.
>>
>> Lets turn this into a truth table for easier understanding. Here first
>> coulmn and thrid column represents this above code. 2nd column represents
>> any other thread interacting with the page.
>>
>> If page is written/dirty some other task interacts wp_page
>> no does nothing no
>> no writes to page no
>> no wp the page no
>> yes does nothing yes
>> yes write to page yes
>> yes wp the page yes
>>
>> As you can see there isn't any side-effect happening. We aren't over doing
>> the wp or under-doing the write-protect.
>>
>> Even if we were doing something wrong here and I bring the lock over all of
>> this, the pages get become written or wp just after unlocking. It is
>> expected. This current implementation doesn't seem to be breaking this.
>>
>> Is my understanding wrong somewhere here? Can you point out?
>
> Yes you're right. With is_writ check it looks all fine.
>
>>
>> Previous to this current locking design were either buggy or slower when
>> multiple threads were working on same pages. Current implementation removes
>> the limitations:
>> - The memcpy inside pagemap_scan_output is happening with pte unlocked.
>
> Why this has anything to worry? Isn't that memcpy only applies to a
> page_region struct?
Yeah, correct. I'm just saying that memcpy without pte lock is better than
memcpy with pte locked. :)
>
>> - We are only wp a page if we have noted this page to be dirty
>> - No mm write lock is required. Only read lock works fine just like
>> userfaultfd_writeprotect() takes only read lock.
>
> I didn't even notice you used to use write lock. Yes I think read lock is
> suffice here.
>
>>
>> There is only one con here that we are locking and unlocking the pte lock
>> again and again.
>>
>> Please have a look at my explanation and let me know what do you think.
>
> I think this is fine as long as the semantics is correct, which I believe
> is the case. The spinlock can be optimized, but it can be done on top if
> needs more involved changes.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately you also cannot reuse uffd_wp_range() because that's not
>>> atomic either, my fault here. Probably I was thinking mostly from
>>> soft-dirty pov on batching the collect+reset.
>>>
>>> You need to take the spin lock, collect whatever bits, set/clear whatever
>>> bits, only until then release the spin lock.
>>>
>>> "Not atomic" means you can have some page got dirtied but you could miss
>>> it. Depending on how strict you want, I think it'll break apps like CRIU
>>> if strict atomicity needed for migrating a process. If we want to have a
>>> new interface anyway, IMHO we'd better do that in the strict way.
>> In my rigorous multi-threaded testing where a lots of threads are working
>> on same set of pages, we aren't losing even a single update. I can share
>> the test if you want.
>
> Good to have tests covering that. I'd say you can add the test into
> selftests along with the series when you repost if it's convenient. It can
> be part of an existing test or it can be a new one under mm/.
Sure, I'll add it to the selftests.
Thank you for reviewing and asking the questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-16 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-09 13:57 [PATCH v11 0/7] Implement IOCTL to get and optionally clear info about PTEs Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 1/7] userfaultfd: Add UFFD WP Async support Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-16 19:20 ` Peter Xu
2023-03-17 14:00 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-21 12:21 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-21 19:25 ` Peter Xu
2023-03-23 15:43 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 2/7] userfaultfd: Define dummy uffd_wp_range() Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-16 7:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-03-16 18:05 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 3/7] userfaultfd: update documentation to describe UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 4/7] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and optionally clear info about PTEs Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-13 16:02 ` Michał Mirosław
2023-03-16 17:53 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-16 21:28 ` Michał Mirosław
2023-03-17 12:43 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-17 14:15 ` Michał Mirosław
2023-03-20 6:08 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-15 15:55 ` Peter Xu
2023-03-15 16:54 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-15 19:53 ` Peter Xu
2023-03-16 5:17 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum [this message]
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 5/7] tools headers UAPI: Update linux/fs.h with the kernel sources Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 6/7] mm/pagemap: add documentation of PAGEMAP_SCAN IOCTL Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 13:57 ` [PATCH v11 7/7] selftests: mm: add pagemap ioctl tests Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-09 19:58 ` [PATCH v11 0/7] Implement IOCTL to get and optionally clear info about PTEs Andrew Morton
2023-03-09 22:24 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-20 18:30 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-03-21 12:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-03-21 15:10 ` 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=1947fb8d-a307-ac47-a66b-d2dcdce9e850@collabora.com \
--to=usama.anjum@collabora.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.sierra@amd.com \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=emmir@google.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mdanylo@google.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=pgofman@codeweavers.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yun.zhou@windriver.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).