lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/rmap: support move to different root anon_vma in folio_move_anon_rmap()
From
On 13.10.23 00:01, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 11:42:26PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>>
>> For now, folio_move_anon_rmap() was only used to move a folio to a
>> different anon_vma after fork(), whereby the root anon_vma stayed
>> unchanged. For that, it was sufficient to hold the folio lock when
>> calling folio_move_anon_rmap().
>>
>> However, we want to make use of folio_move_anon_rmap() to move folios
>> between VMAs that have a different root anon_vma. As folio_referenced()
>> performs an RMAP walk without holding the folio lock but only holding the
>> anon_vma in read mode, holding the folio lock is insufficient.
>>
>> When moving to an anon_vma with a different root anon_vma, we'll have to
>> hold both, the folio lock and the anon_vma lock in write mode.
>> Consequently, whenever we succeeded in folio_lock_anon_vma_read() to
>> read-lock the anon_vma, we have to re-check if the mapping was changed
>> in the meantime. If that was the case, we have to retry.
>>
>> Note that folio_move_anon_rmap() must only be called if the anon page is
>> exclusive to a process, and must not be called on KSM folios.
>>
>> This is a preparation for UFFDIO_MOVE, which will hold the folio lock,
>> the anon_vma lock in write mode, and the mmap_lock in read mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>> ---
>> mm/rmap.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index c1f11c9dbe61..f9ddc50269d2 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -542,7 +542,9 @@ struct anon_vma *folio_lock_anon_vma_read(struct folio *folio,
>> struct anon_vma *root_anon_vma;
>> unsigned long anon_mapping;
>>
>> +retry:
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> +retry_under_rcu:
>> anon_mapping = (unsigned long)READ_ONCE(folio->mapping);
>> if ((anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS) != PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
>> goto out;
>> @@ -552,6 +554,16 @@ struct anon_vma *folio_lock_anon_vma_read(struct folio *folio,
>> anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
>> root_anon_vma = READ_ONCE(anon_vma->root);
>> if (down_read_trylock(&root_anon_vma->rwsem)) {
>> + /*
>> + * folio_move_anon_rmap() might have changed the anon_vma as we
>> + * might not hold the folio lock here.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely((unsigned long)READ_ONCE(folio->mapping) !=
>> + anon_mapping)) {
>> + up_read(&root_anon_vma->rwsem);
>> + goto retry_under_rcu;
>
> Is adding this specific label worthwhile? How about rcu unlock and goto
> retry (then it'll also be clear that we won't hold rcu read lock for
> unpredictable time)?

+1, sounds good to me

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-13 10:05    [W:0.790 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site