lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: khugepaged: fix potential page state corruption
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:17:13AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/20 3:49 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:39:21PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/18/20 5:55 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/18/20 5:12 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:19:42AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > > When khugepaged collapses anonymous pages, the base pages would
> > > > > > be freed
> > > > > > via pagevec or free_page_and_swap_cache().  But, the anonymous page may
> > > > > > be added back to LRU, then it might result in the below race:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     CPU A                CPU B
> > > > > > khugepaged:
> > > > > >    unlock page
> > > > > >    putback_lru_page
> > > > > >      add to lru
> > > > > >                 page reclaim:
> > > > > >                   isolate this page
> > > > > >                   try_to_unmap
> > > > > >    page_remove_rmap <-- corrupt _mapcount
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks nothing would prevent the pages from isolating by reclaimer.
> > > > > Hm. Why should it?
> > > > >
> > > > > try_to_unmap() doesn't exclude parallel page unmapping. _mapcount is
> > > > > protected by ptl. And this particular _mapcount pin is reachable for
> > > > > reclaim as it's not part of usual page table tree. Basically
> > > > > try_to_unmap() will never succeeds until we give up the _mapcount on
> > > > > khugepaged side.
> > > > I don't quite get. What does "not part of usual page table tree" means?
> > > >
> > > > How's about try_to_unmap() acquires ptl before khugepaged?
> > The page table we are dealing with was detached from the process' page
> > table tree: see pmdp_collapse_flush(). try_to_unmap() will not see the
> > pte.
>
> A follow-up question here. pmdp_collapse_flush() clears pmd entry and does
> TLB shootdown on x86. I'm supposed the main purpose is to serialize fast gup
> since it doesn't acquire any lock (mmap_sem, ptl ,etc), but disable
> interrupt so the TLB shootdown IPI would get blocked. This could guarantee
> synchronization on x86, but it looks not all architectures do TLB shootdown
> or implement it via IPI, so how they could serialize with fast gup?

The main purpose of pmdp_collapse_flush() is to block access to pages
under collapse, including access via GUP (and its variants).

It's up to architecture to implement it correctly, including TLB flush vs.
GUP_fast serialization. Genetic way works fine for most architectures.
Notable exceptions are Power and S390.

> In addition it looks acquiring pmd lock is not necessary. Before both write
> mmap_sem and write anon_vma lock are acquired which could serialize page
> fault and rmap walk, so it looks fast gup is the only one which could run
> concurrently, but fast gup doesn't acquire ptl at all. It seems the
> pmd_lock/unlock could be removed.

This is likely true. And we have a comment there. But taking uncontended
lock is check, so why not.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-25 12:26    [W:0.097 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site