From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: protect against concurrent vma expansion
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:01:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121203150110.39c204ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1354344987-28203-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:56:27 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> expand_stack() runs with a shared mmap_sem lock. Because of this, there
> could be multiple concurrent stack expansions in the same mm, which may
> cause problems in the vma gap update code.
>
> I propose to solve this by taking the mm->page_table_lock around such vma
> expansions, in order to avoid the concurrency issue. We only have to worry
> about concurrent expand_stack() calls here, since we hold a shared mmap_sem
> lock and all vma modificaitons other than expand_stack() are done under
> an exclusive mmap_sem lock.
>
> I previously tried to achieve the same effect by making sure all
> growable vmas in a given mm would share the same anon_vma, which we
> already lock here. However this turned out to be difficult - all of the
> schemes I tried for refcounting the growable anon_vma and clearing
> turned out ugly. So, I'm now proposing only the minimal fix.
>
I think I don't understand the problem fully. Let me demonstrate:
a) vma_lock_anon_vma() doesn't take a lock which is specific to
"this" anon_vma. It takes anon_vma->root->mutex. That mutex is
shared with vma->vm_next, yes? If so, we have no problem here?
(which makes me suspect that the races lies other than where I think
it lies).
b) I can see why a broader lock is needed in expand_upwards(): it
plays with a different vma: vma->vm_next. But expand_downwards()
doesn't do that - it only alters "this" vma. So I'd have thought
that vma_lock_anon_vma("this" vma) would be sufficient.
What are the performance costs of this change?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: protect against concurrent vma expansion
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:01:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121203150110.39c204ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1354344987-28203-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:56:27 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> expand_stack() runs with a shared mmap_sem lock. Because of this, there
> could be multiple concurrent stack expansions in the same mm, which may
> cause problems in the vma gap update code.
>
> I propose to solve this by taking the mm->page_table_lock around such vma
> expansions, in order to avoid the concurrency issue. We only have to worry
> about concurrent expand_stack() calls here, since we hold a shared mmap_sem
> lock and all vma modificaitons other than expand_stack() are done under
> an exclusive mmap_sem lock.
>
> I previously tried to achieve the same effect by making sure all
> growable vmas in a given mm would share the same anon_vma, which we
> already lock here. However this turned out to be difficult - all of the
> schemes I tried for refcounting the growable anon_vma and clearing
> turned out ugly. So, I'm now proposing only the minimal fix.
>
I think I don't understand the problem fully. Let me demonstrate:
a) vma_lock_anon_vma() doesn't take a lock which is specific to
"this" anon_vma. It takes anon_vma->root->mutex. That mutex is
shared with vma->vm_next, yes? If so, we have no problem here?
(which makes me suspect that the races lies other than where I think
it lies).
b) I can see why a broader lock is needed in expand_upwards(): it
plays with a different vma: vma->vm_next. But expand_downwards()
doesn't do that - it only alters "this" vma. So I'd have thought
that vma_lock_anon_vma("this" vma) would be sufficient.
What are the performance costs of this change?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-03 23:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-01 6:56 [PATCH] mm: protect against concurrent vma expansion Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-01 6:56 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-03 23:01 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-12-03 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2012-12-04 0:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-04 0:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-04 0:43 ` Andrew Morton
2012-12-04 0:43 ` Andrew Morton
2012-12-04 14:48 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-04 14:48 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-20 1:56 ` Simon Jeons
2012-12-20 1:56 ` Simon Jeons
2012-12-20 3:01 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-20 3:01 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-04 0:40 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-04 0:40 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-04 0:50 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-04 0:50 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-04 1:18 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-04 1:18 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-04 2:49 ` Al Viro
2013-01-04 2:49 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121203150110.39c204ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.