Re: mm: delay rmap removal until after TLB flush

[Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:43:30 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Updated subject line, and here's the link to the original discussion
> for new people:
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/all/B88D3073-440A-41C7-95F4-895D3F657EF2@gmail.com/
> 
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:28 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ok. At that point we no longer have the pte or the virtual address, so
> > it's not going to be exactly the same debug output.
> >
> > But I think it ends up being fairly natural to do
> >
> >         VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(page_mapcount(page) < 0, page);
> >
> > instead, and I've fixed that last patch up to do that.
> 
> Ok, so I've got a fixed set of patches based on the feedback from
> PeterZ, and also tried to do the s390 updates for this blindly, and
> pushed them out into a git branch:
> 
>     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?h=mmu_gather-race-fix
> 
> If people really want to see the patches in email again, I can do
> that, but most of you already have, and the changes are either trivial
> fixes or the s390 updates.
> 
> For the s390 people that I've now added to the participant list maybe
> the git tree is fine - and the fundamental explanation of the problem
> is in that top-most commit (with the three preceding commits being
> prep-work). Or that link to the thread about this all.
> 
> That top-most commit is also where I tried to fix things up for s390
> that uses its own non-gathering TLB flush due to
> CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_NO_GATHER.
> 
> NOTE NOTE NOTE! Unlike my regular git branch, this one may end up
> rebased etc for further comments and fixes. So don't consider that
> stable, it's still more of an RFC branch.
> 
> At a minimum I'll update it with Ack's etc, assuming I get those, and
> my s390 changes are entirely untested and probably won't work.
> 
> As far as I can tell, s390 doesn't actually *have* the problem that
> causes this change, because of its synchronous TLB flush, but it
> obviously needs to deal with the change of rmap zapping logic.

Correct, we need to flush already when we change a PTE, which is
done in ptep_get_and_clear() etc. Only exception would be lazy
flushing when only one active thread is attached, then we would
flush later in flush_tlb_mm/range(), or as soon as another thread
is attached (IIRC).

So it seems straight forward to just call page_zap_pte_rmap()
from our private __tlb_remove_page_size() implementation.

Just wondering a bit why you did not also add the
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(page_mapcount(page) < 0, page), like
in the generic change.

Acked-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com> # s390