lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Take all anon_vma locks in anon_vma_lock


On Mon, 3 May 2010, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> One problem is that we cannot find the VMAs (multiple) from
> the page, except by walking the anon_vma_chain.same_anon_vma
> list. At the very least, that list requires locking, done
> by the anon_vma.lock.

But that's exactly what we do in rmap_walk() anyway.

But yes, I can well imagine that in other cases we only do the one
anon_vma. I didn't check who used the lock.

So if we do want to keep the lock in the anon_vma, I would just suggest
that instead of making "normal" users do lots of locking, make the
rmap_walk side one.

> A forkbomb could definately end up getting slowed down by
> this patch. Is there any real workload out there that just
> forks deeper and deeper from the parent process, without
> calling exec() after a generation or two?

Heh. AIM7. Wasn't that why we merged the multiple anon_vma's in the first
place?

> > So again, my gut feel is that if the lock just were in the vma itself,
> > then the "normal" users would have just one natural lock, while the
> > special case users (rmap_walk_anon) would have to lock each vma it
> > traverses. That would seem to be the more natural way to lock things.
>
> However ... there's still the issue of page_lock_anon_vma
> in try_to_unmap_anon.

Do we care?

We've not locked them all there, and we've historically not cares about
the rmap list being "perfect", have we?

So I _think_ it's just the migration case (and apparently potentially the
hugepage case) that wants _exact_ information. Which is why I suggest the
onus of the extra locking should be on _them_, not on the regular code.

I dunno. Again, my objections to the patches are really based more on a
gut feel of "that can't be the right thing to do" than anything else.

We have _extremely_ few places that walk lists to lock things. And they
are never "normal" code. Things like that magic "mm_take_all_locks()", for
example. That is why I then react with "that can't be right" to patches
like this.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-03 20:25    [W:0.158 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site