From: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Carlos Llamas" <cmllamas@google.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun@kernel.org>, "Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@kernel.org>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@umich.edu>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust_binder: use lock_vma_under_rcu() in shrinker
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 14:19:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agHUZ4AKQBgMecBY@lucifer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260507-binder-shrinker-lockvma-v1-1-76e3406bbfa6@google.com>
On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 11:07:47AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> The shrinker callback currently uses the mmap read trylock operation to
> attempt to access the vma, but it's generally better to only lock the
> vma instead of the whole mmap when you can.
>
> When lock_vma_under_rcu() fails, there is no reason to lock the mmap
> lock instead because it's already a trylock operation that is allowed to
> fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
This seems similar to Dave's patch [0], not sure if it was inspired by that? :)
[0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260429181957.7511C256@davehans-spike.ostc.intel.com/
In any case the general approach seems sane to me, as rust code I can't really
review it properly, but aside from the comment below (presumably that's fine) it
conceptually LGTM so:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/android/binder/page_range.rs | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder/page_range.rs b/drivers/android/binder/page_range.rs
> index e54a90e62402..e82a5523804f 100644
> --- a/drivers/android/binder/page_range.rs
> +++ b/drivers/android/binder/page_range.rs
> @@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
> let page;
> let page_index;
> let mm;
> - let mmap_read;
> + let vma_read;
> let mm_mutex;
> let vma_addr;
> let range_ptr;
> @@ -728,17 +728,18 @@ fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
> None => return LRU_SKIP,
> };
>
> - mmap_read = match mm.mmap_read_trylock() {
> - Some(guard) => guard,
> - None => return LRU_SKIP,
> - };
> -
> // We can't lock it normally here, since we hold the lru lock.
> let inner = match range.lock.try_lock() {
> Some(inner) => inner,
> None => return LRU_SKIP,
> };
>
> + vma_addr = inner.vma_addr;
> + vma_read = match mm.lock_vma_under_rcu(vma_addr) {
> + Some(guard) => guard,
> + None => return LRU_SKIP,
> + };
> +
One question here - are we good to do this _after_ locking the 'inner' lock
above?
> // SAFETY: The item is in this lru list, so it's okay to remove it.
> unsafe { bindings::list_lru_isolate(lru, item) };
>
> @@ -751,7 +752,6 @@ fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
> // `zap_page_range` before we release the mmap lock, so `use_page_slow` will not be able to
> // insert a new page until after our call to `zap_page_range`.
> page = unsafe { PageInfo::take_page(info) };
> - vma_addr = inner.vma_addr;
>
> // From this point on, we don't access this PageInfo or ShrinkablePageRange again, because
> // they can be freed at any point after we unlock `lru_lock`. This is with the exception of
> @@ -761,14 +761,12 @@ fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
> // SAFETY: The lru lock is locked when this method is called.
> unsafe { bindings::spin_unlock(&raw mut (*lru).lock) };
>
> - if let Some(unchecked_vma) = mmap_read.vma_lookup(vma_addr) {
> - if let Some(vma) = check_vma(unchecked_vma, range_ptr) {
> - let user_page_addr = vma_addr + (page_index << PAGE_SHIFT);
> - vma.zap_vma_range(user_page_addr, PAGE_SIZE);
> - }
> + if let Some(vma) = check_vma(&vma_read, range_ptr) {
> + let user_page_addr = vma_addr + (page_index << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + vma.zap_vma_range(user_page_addr, PAGE_SIZE);
> }
>
> - drop(mmap_read);
> + drop(vma_read);
> drop(mm_mutex);
> drop(mm);
> drop(page);
>
> ---
> base-commit: 7fd2df204f342fc17d1a0bfcd474b24232fb0f32
> change-id: 20260507-binder-shrinker-lockvma-51ff7d621f25
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-11 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-07 11:07 [PATCH] rust_binder: use lock_vma_under_rcu() in shrinker Alice Ryhl
2026-05-11 13:19 ` Lorenzo Stoakes [this message]
2026-05-12 8:56 ` Alice Ryhl
2026-05-14 10:51 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
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=agHUZ4AKQBgMecBY@lucifer \
--to=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=a.hindborg@kernel.org \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=cmllamas@google.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lossin@kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tmgross@umich.edu \
/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.