From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAF8CD5BB3 for ; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:39:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=PhXZNDewQIU/RtpMf+wfAqV2sivH+vGmM2cktxerE4U=; b=VGVxB+hIOzakYT0j8JYEgjcyDT FKe4ix2UfLWqe6tOXulHoNTKUW8CjoUeVG+SreJr/GCX4eDSv2VtLOmRBPXknslrqHpooj+/EuxqK ongEc2AgPqOpkQExe40fRe75NCTduLCa9kAzoFqaXlZpR/TQPSpKQKbkcCyPia0Wx0AGghvXp+fMl 1LszZZpZ/V/+O5XbkJA3n+C2Zr/Izq2vU2p3Mn1ruO5nGYuseODGjGaeh2amjjTNoCRAdgq+wbfud 1PCA7pRAKL+mTPL4ughP9AQfdkODp1MYA9dw6mELEEEtiQNOUHGgjspROYptIbFu1Im38+zTrlBjd TV+5HLGw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wQRyG-0000000BHeH-3BhE; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:39:32 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wQRyF-0000000BHdd-2a59; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:39:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F5C60172; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A38B41F000E9; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:39:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779464370; bh=PhXZNDewQIU/RtpMf+wfAqV2sivH+vGmM2cktxerE4U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=i257pqtM2kYPACyD1ngfUggI4iSRxqjUdYlFKKxzVufZViVIVT2xBOEl0SpU6DInE ROGVAZb/3/W0IvbwFMxor6HFcVcNrG5Q21A1mRVWwKOQBsih1iPdGeTznGeoJB3DO+ Fn3PvCB8+2fNVtuS/MJbVyshSkcM02OLF0I9W6ZI0pMtT9j53IMpWiV0ZX8JC6M9P/ FaQjM533MNXthFgpwvWbAxK8bl8eUM9XMOgr6DAoXK73ugQpZzruTM8OshFacd6BC7 PNNlBh7PgBgxYyU+EgAcx28busgrsz6DinxYMoEk9F2NneTnICrdURcILPdeHr1TFa GSUpZYp++RtDg== Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 16:39:20 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Suren Baghdasaryan Cc: Barry Song , Matthew Wilcox , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, david@kernel.org, liam@infradead.org, vbabka@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, jack@suse.cz, pfalcato@suse.de, wanglian@kylinos.cn, chentao@kylinos.cn, lianux.mm@gmail.com, kunwu.chan@gmail.com, liyangouwen1@oppo.com, chrisl@kernel.org, kasong@tencent.com, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, nphamcs@gmail.com, bhe@redhat.com, youngjun.park@lge.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Nanzhe Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: reduce mmap_lock contention and improve page fault performance Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 05:51:23AM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:53 PM Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 12:56:59PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think we either need to fix `fork()`, or keep the current > > > > behavior of dropping the VMA lock before performing I/O. > > > > > > I see. So, this problem arises from the fact that we are changing the > > > pagefaults requiring I/O operation to hold VMA lock... > > > And you want to lock VMA on fork only if vma_is_anonymous(vma) || > > > is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags). So, we will be blocking page faults for > > > anonymous and COW VMAs only while holding mmap_write_lock, preventing > > > any VMA modification. On the surface, that looks ok to me but I might > > > be missing some corner cases. If nobody sees any obvious issues, I > > > think it's worth a try. > > > > Not sure if you noticed but I did raise concerns ;) > > Sorry, I didn't realize your first comment was a conceptual objection > to this approach of allowing page faults to race with the fork. Ah yeah it's understandable I think there's been so many threads in this conversation that it's easy to get lost :) > > > > > > I wonder if you've confused the fault path and fork here, as I think Barry has > > been a little unclear on that. > > > > What's being suggested in this thread is to fundamentally change fork behaviour > > so it's different from the entire history of the kernel (or - presumably - at > > least recent history :) and permit concurrent page faults to occur on a forking > > process. > > > > I absolutely object to this for being pretty crazy. I mean I'm not sure we > > really want to be simultaneously modifying page tables while invoking > > copy_page_range()? No? > > > > OK you cover anon and MAP_PRIVATE file-backed but hang on there's > > VM_COPY_ON_FORK too.. so PFN mapped, mixed map and (the accursed) UFFD W/P as > > well as possibly-guard region containing VMAs now can have page tables raced. > > Ugh, yeah, I realize now this is a minefield. Resolving all possible > races there would not be trivial and might introduce other performance > issues. Yeah, it's dangerous waters :) > > > > > That's not to mention anything else that relies on serialisation here (this > > would be changing how forking has been done in general) that we may or may not > > know about. > > > > The risk level is high, for what amounts to a hack to work around the fault > > issue. > > > > I suggest that if we have a problem with the fault path, let's look at the fault > > path :) > > > > So yeah I'm very opposed to this unless I'm somehow horribly mistaken here or a > > very convincing argument is made. > > So, current approach of dropping locks during I/O sounds like still > the best solution. Yeah _of those proposed_ I think importantly. This doesn't mean there aren't other potential solutions. Thanks, Lorenzo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd also like to get Suren's input, however. > > > > > > > > Yes. of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Lorenzo > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > Barry > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo