From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
J???r???me Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:17:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lgheh173.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180103095408.pqxggi7voser7ia3@techsingularity.net> (Mel Gorman's message of "Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:54:08 +0000")
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:42:15AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:29:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>> >> On Tue 02-01-18 10:21:03, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:36:53AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> >> > > > code path. It appears that similar situation is possible for them too.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The file cache pages will be delete from file cache address_space before
>> >> > > > address_space (embedded in inode) is freed. But they will be deleted
>> >> > > > from LRU list only when its refcount dropped to zero, please take a look
>> >> > > > at put_page() and release_pages(). While address_space will be freed
>> >> > > > after putting reference to all file cache pages. If someone holds a
>> >> > > > reference to a file cache page for quite long time, it is possible for a
>> >> > > > file cache page to be in LRU list after the inode/address_space is
>> >> > > > freed.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > And I found inode/address_space is freed witch call_rcu(). I don't know
>> >> > > > whether this is related to page_mapping().
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > This is just my understanding.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hmm, it smells like a bug of __isolate_lru_page.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ccing Mel:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What locks protects address_space destroying when race happens between
>> >> > > inode trauncation and __isolate_lru_page?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm just back online and have a lot of catching up to do so this is a rushed
>> >> > answer and I didn't read the background of this. However the question is
>> >> > somewhat ambiguous and the scope is broad as I'm not sure which race you
>> >> > refer to. For file cache pages, I wouldnt' expect the address_space to be
>> >> > destroyed specifically as long as the inode exists which is the structure
>> >> > containing the address_space in this case. A page on the LRU being isolated
>> >> > in __isolate_lru_page will have an elevated reference count which will
>> >> > pin the inode until remove_mapping is called which holds the page lock
>> >> > while inode truncation looking at a page for truncation also only checks
>> >> > page_mapping under the page lock. Very broadly speaking, pages avoid being
>> >> > added back to an inode being freed by checking the I_FREEING state.
>> >>
>> >> So I'm wondering what prevents the following:
>> >>
>> >> CPU1 CPU2
>> >>
>> >> truncate(inode) __isolate_lru_page()
>> >> ...
>> >> truncate_inode_page(mapping, page);
>> >> delete_from_page_cache(page)
>> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
>> >> __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL)
>> >> page_cache_tree_delete(..)
>> >> ... mapping = page_mapping(page);
>> >> page->mapping = NULL;
>> >> ...
>> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
>> >> page_cache_free_page(mapping, page)
>> >> put_page(page)
>> >> if (put_page_testzero(page)) -> false
>> >> - inode now has no pages and can be freed including embedded address_space
>> >>
>> >> if (mapping && !mapping->a_ops->migratepage)
>> >> - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm, possible if unlikely.
>> >
>> > Before delete_from_page_cache, we called truncate_cleanup_page so the
>> > page is likely to be !PageDirty or PageWriteback which gets skipped by
>> > the only caller that checks the mappping in __isolate_lru_page. The race
>> > is tiny but it does exist. One way of closing it is to check the mapping
>> > under the page lock which will prevent races with truncation. The
>> > overhead is minimal as the calling context (compaction) is quite a heavy
>> > operation anyway.
>> >
>>
>> I think another possible fix is to use call_rcu_sched() to free inode
>> (and address_space). Because __isolate_lru_page() will be called with
>> LRU spinlock held and IRQ disabled, call_rcu_sched() will wait
>> LRU spin_unlock and IRQ enabled.
>>
>
> Maybe, but in this particular case, I would prefer to go with something
> more conventional unless there is strong evidence that it's an improvement
> (which I doubt in this case given the cost of migration overall and the
> corner case of migrating a dirty page).
So you like page_lock() more than RCU? Is there any problem of RCU?
The object to be protected isn't clear?
Another way to fix this with RCU is to replace
trylock_page()/unlock_page() with rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() in
your fix.
JFYI, please keep your fix if you think that is more appropriate.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-04 1:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-20 1:26 [PATCH -V4 -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations Huang, Ying
2017-12-21 2:16 ` Minchan Kim
[not found] ` <871sjopllj.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
2017-12-21 23:58 ` Minchan Kim
2017-12-22 14:14 ` Huang, Ying
2017-12-22 16:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-12-25 1:28 ` Huang, Ying
2017-12-23 1:36 ` Minchan Kim
2017-12-26 5:33 ` Huang, Ying
2018-01-02 10:21 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-02 11:29 ` Jan Kara
2018-01-02 13:29 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-03 0:42 ` Huang, Ying
2018-01-03 9:54 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-04 1:17 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2018-01-04 10:21 ` Mel Gorman
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=87lgheh173.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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).