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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5104C61D97 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344300AbjKVOGW (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:06:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32872 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344271AbjKVOGU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:06:20 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E151101 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AMDHGf8025176; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=dA7NrA5d6C8cs4386hd0trKQbmFGmI3SeE+zd99ea/I=; b=K9ZKUUO09qNAPWcuVsKyEBVp/fNXpdXkimm5gcu1Ai14fJf6F7NMk+Q//sZhReLZhbOZ PKVRsXMWuQcAKiZTRKyjbtZpSBoF9/UitPlii/QyjEXV5QFejRqoUWVc4CzQapNBWr87 ZRq9XhA4K1hzSw85x5V5kvwwEdcqVjGgrdY7d/pj5MlKsVPJwPNeYS/i8IgQ57piU+jQ fMR4WDksYdkLUN103mfGItDYsMAUZVWBfgMwDRfMxC5m9x8RLBriediFdO46+4TT53JQ uyLde522BvqhGMY7Aigts6JkL/YN3SU2/zfJ8Q8bk8gDhkQQ+ZpePMuPtDYqlRCmfr3H IQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uhjd0hc3h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:57 +0000 Received: from m0353727.ppops.net (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3AMDolDB024045; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:57 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uhjd0hc30-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AMDUD1o001768; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:55 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.228]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uf93m031d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:55 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.103]) by smtprelay04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3AME4pgL44827032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:51 GMT Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD3E20043; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A52B20040; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.85.9]) by smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:04:50 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:04:49 +0100 From: Alexander Gordeev To: Jann Horn Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , peterz@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org, jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com, axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com, edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com, arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com, leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/41] mm: add per-VMA lock and helper functions to control it Message-ID: References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-13-surenb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 5MhcCP9ifUrUeiSZNpIhaNnBNovbexne X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: zLZ94B08QXl1Fcylsg1aKWlm3qbMRA7p X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-22_09,2023-11-22_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2311220100 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:45:25PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: Hi Jann, > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:28 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:03 AM Jann Horn wrote: > > > > > > +locking maintainers > > > > Thanks! I'll CC the locking maintainers in the next posting. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > Introduce a per-VMA rw_semaphore to be used during page fault handling > > > > instead of mmap_lock. Because there are cases when multiple VMAs need > > > > to be exclusively locked during VMA tree modifications, instead of the > > > > usual lock/unlock patter we mark a VMA as locked by taking per-VMA lock > > > > exclusively and setting vma->lock_seq to the current mm->lock_seq. When > > > > mmap_write_lock holder is done with all modifications and drops mmap_lock, > > > > it will increment mm->lock_seq, effectively unlocking all VMAs marked as > > > > locked. > > > [...] > > > > +static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > > > +{ > > > > + up_read(&vma->lock); > > > > +} > > > > > > One thing that might be gnarly here is that I think you might not be > > > allowed to use up_read() to fully release ownership of an object - > > > from what I remember, I think that up_read() (unlike something like > > > spin_unlock()) can access the lock object after it's already been > > > acquired by someone else. So if you want to protect against concurrent > > > deletion, this might have to be something like: > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(); /* keeps vma alive */ > > > up_read(&vma->lock); > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > But for deleting VMA one would need to write-lock the vma->lock first, > > which I assume can't happen until this up_read() is complete. Is that > > assumption wrong? > > __up_read() does: > > rwsem_clear_reader_owned(sem); > tmp = atomic_long_add_return_release(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count); > DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(tmp < 0, sem); > if (unlikely((tmp & (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK|RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) == > RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) { > clear_nonspinnable(sem); > rwsem_wake(sem); > } This sequence is covered by preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(). Would not it preserve the RCU grace period until after __up_read() exited? > The atomic_long_add_return_release() is the point where we are doing > the main lock-releasing. > > So if a reader dropped the read-lock while someone else was waiting on > the lock (RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) and no other readers were holding the > lock together with it, the reader also does clear_nonspinnable() and > rwsem_wake() afterwards. > But in rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), after we've set > RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, we can return successfully immediately once > rwsem_try_write_lock() sees that there are no active readers or > writers anymore (if RWSEM_LOCK_MASK is unset and the cmpxchg > succeeds). We're not necessarily waiting for the "nonspinnable" bit or > the wake. > > So yeah, I think down_write() can return successfully before up_read() > is done with its memory accesses. Thanks!