From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752163AbbKJWmj (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:42:39 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:27130 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762AbbKJWmh (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:42:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Unmap pages if page fault raced with hole punch To: Hugh Dickins References: <1446158038-25815-1-git-send-email-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> <56339EBA.4070508@oracle.com> <5633D984.7080307@oracle.com> <5641244F.3060108@oracle.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Naoya Horiguchi , Davidlohr Bueso From: Mike Kravetz Message-ID: <564272AD.10203@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:41:49 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5641244F.3060108@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/09/2015 02:55 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 11/08/2015 11:42 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote: >>> >>> The 'next = start' code is actually from the original truncate_hugepages >>> routine. This functionality was combined with that needed for hole punch >>> to create remove_inode_hugepages(). >>> >>> The following code was in truncate_hugepages: >>> >>> next = start; >>> while (1) { >>> if (!pagevec_lookup(&pvec, mapping, next, PAGEVEC_SIZE)) { >>> if (next == start) >>> break; >>> next = start; >>> continue; >>> } >>> >>> >>> So, in the truncate case pages starting at 'start' are deleted until >>> pagevec_lookup fails. Then, we call pagevec_lookup() again. If no >>> pages are found we are done. Else, we repeat the whole process. >>> >>> Does anyone recall the reason for going back and looking for pages at >>> index'es already deleted? Git doesn't help as that was part of initial >>> commit. My thought is that truncate can race with page faults. The >>> truncate code sets inode offset before unmapping and deleting pages. >>> So, faults after the new offset is set should fail. But, I suppose a >>> fault could race with setting offset and deleting of pages. Does this >>> sound right? Or, is there some other reason I am missing? >> >> I believe your thinking is correct. But remember that >> truncate_inode_pages_range() is shared by almost all filesystems, >> and different filesystems have different internal locking conventions, >> and different propensities to such a race: it's trying to cover for >> all of them. >> >> Typically, writing is well serialized (by i_mutex) against truncation, >> but faulting (like reading) sails through without enough of a lock. >> We resort to i_size checks to avoid the worst of it, but there's often >> a corner or two in which those checks are not quite good enough - >> it's easy to check i_size at the beginning, but it needs to be checked >> again at the end too, and what's been done undone - can be awkward. > > Well, it looks like the hugetlb_no_page() routine is checking i_size both > before and after. It appears to be doing the right thing to handle the > race, but I need to stare at the code some more to make sure. > > Because of the way the truncate code went back and did an extra lookup > when done with the range, I assumed it was covering some race. However, > that may not be the case. > >> >> I hope that in the case of hugetlbfs, since you already have the >> additional fault_mutex to handle races between faults and punching, >> it should be possible to get away without that "pincer" restarting. > > Yes, it looks like this may work as a straight loop over the range of > pages. I just need to study the code some more to make sure I am not > missing something. I have convinced myself that hugetlb_no_page is coded such that page faults can not race with truncate. hugetlb_no_page handles the case where there is no PTE for a faulted in address. The general flow in hugetlb_no_page for the no page found case is: - check index against i_size, end if beyond - allocate huge page - take page table lock for huge page - check index against i_size again, if beyond free page and return - add huge page to page table - unlock page table lock for huge page The flow for the truncate operation in hugetlb_vmtruncate is: - set i_size - take inode/mapping write lock - hugetlb_vmdelete_list() which removes page table entries. The page table lock will be taken for each huge page in the range - release inode/mapping write lock - remove_inode_hugepages() to actually remove pages The truncate/page fault race we are concerned with is if a page is faulted in after hugetlb_vmtruncate sets i_size and unmaps the page, but before actually removing the page. Obviously, any entry into hugetlb_no_page after i_size is set will check the value and not allow the fault. In addition, if the value of i_size is set before the second check in hugetlb_no_page, it will do the right thing. Therefore, the only place to race is after the second i_size check in hugetlb_no_page. Note that the second check for i_size is with the page table lock for the huge page held. It is not possible for hugetlb_vmtruncate to unmap the huge page before the page fault completes, as it must acquire the page table lock. This is the same as a fault happening before the truncate operation starts and is handled correctly by hugetlb_vmtruncate. Another way to look at this is by asking the question, Is it possible to fault on a page in the truncate range after it is unmapped by hugetlb_vmtruncate/hugetlb_vmdelete_list? To unmap a page, hugetlb_vmtruncate will: - set i_size - take page table lock for huge page - unmap page - release page table lock for page In order to fault in the page, it must take the same page table lock and check i_size. I do not know of any way for the faulting code to get an old value for i_size. Please let me know if my reasoning is incorrect. I will code up a new (simpler) version of remove_inode_hugepages with the assumption that truncate can not race with page faults. Also, I wrote a fairly simple test to have truncate race with page faults. It was quite easy to hit the second check in hugetlb_no_page where it notices index is beyond i_size and backs out of the fault. Even after adding delays in strategic locations of the fault and truncate code, I could not cause a race as observed by remove_inode_hugepages. -- Mike Kravetz