From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758290Ab2EAPjF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 1 May 2012 11:39:05 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40940 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757241Ab2EAPjD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 1 May 2012 11:39:03 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, npiggin@gmail.com,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Describe race of direct read and fork for unaligned buffers
References: <1335778207-6511-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
	<CAHGf_=qdE3yNw=htuRssfav2pECO1Q0+gWMRTuNROd_3tVrd6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGf_=ojhwPUWJR0r+jVgjNd5h_sRrppzJntSpHzxyv+OuBueg@mail.gmail.com>
	<x49ehr4lyw1.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
	<CAHGf_=rzcfo3OnwT-YsW2iZLchHs3eBKncobvbhTm7B5PE=L-w@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4
X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD  5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4
X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean?
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 11:38:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAHGf_=rzcfo3OnwT-YsW2iZLchHs3eBKncobvbhTm7B5PE=L-w@mail.gmail.com>
	(KOSAKI Motohiro's message of "Tue, 1 May 2012 11:34:04 -0400")
Message-ID: <x491un3nc7a.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you revisit this. But as far as my remember is correct, this issue is NOT
>>>> unaligned access issue. It's just get_user_pages(_fast) vs fork race issue. i.e.
>>>> DIRECT_IO w/ multi thread process should not use fork().
>>>
>>> The problem is, fork (and its COW logic) assume new access makes cow break,
>>> But page table protection can't detect a DMA write. Therefore DIO may override
>>> shared page data.
>>
>> Hm, I've only seen this with misaligned or multiple sub-page-sized reads
>> in the same page.  AFAIR, aligned, page-sized I/O does not get split.
>> But, I could be wrong...
>
> If my remember is correct, the reproducer of past thread is misleading.
>
> dma_thread.c in
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0903.1/01498.html has
> align parameter. But it doesn't only change align. Because of, every
> worker thread read 4K (pagesize), then
>  - when offset is page aligned
>     -> every page is accessed from only one worker
>  - when offset is not page aligned
>     -> every page is accessed from two workers
>
> But I don't remember why two threads are important things. hmm.. I'm
> looking into the code a while.
> Please don't 100% trust me.

I bet Andrea or Larry would remember the details.

Cheers,
Jeff