Re: [PATCH v9 11/17] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a reference count

Wei Yang
2025-01-13T01:47:34Z

On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 12:14:47PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 3:24 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:58PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> So there were quite a few iterations of the patch and I have not been
>> reading majority of the feedback, so it may be I missed something,
>> apologies upfront. :)
>>

Hi, I am new to memory barriers. Hope not bothering.

>> > /*
>> > * Try to read-lock a vma. The function is allowed to occasionally yield false
>> > * locked result to avoid performance overhead, in which case we fall back to
>> > @@ -710,6 +742,8 @@ static inline void vma_lock_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > */
>> > static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > {
>> > + int oldcnt;
>> > +
>> > /*
>> > * Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result.
>> > * We can use READ_ONCE() for the mm_lock_seq here, and don't need
>> > @@ -720,13 +754,19 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq.sequence))
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock.lock) == 0))
>> > + /*
>> > + * If VMA_LOCK_OFFSET is set, __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited() will fail
>> > + * because VMA_REF_LIMIT is less than VMA_LOCK_OFFSET.
>> > + */
>> > + if (unlikely(!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt,
>> > + VMA_REF_LIMIT)))
>> > return false;
>> >
>>
>> Replacing down_read_trylock() with the new routine loses an acquire
>> fence. That alone is not a problem, but see below.
>
>Hmm. I think this acquire fence is actually necessary. We don't want
>the later vm_lock_seq check to be reordered and happen before we take
>the refcount. Otherwise this might happen:
>
>reader writer
>if (vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq) // check got reordered
> return false;
> vm_refcnt += VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
> vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq
> vm_refcnt -= VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
>if (!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited())
> return false;
>
>Both reader's checks will pass and the reader would read-lock a vma
>that was write-locked.
>

Here what we plan to do is define __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited() with
acquire fence, e.g. with atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(), right?

>>
>> > + rwsem_acquire_read(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> > /*
>> > - * Overflow might produce false locked result.
>> > + * Overflow of vm_lock_seq/mm_lock_seq might produce false locked result.
>> > * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
>> > - * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
>> > + * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_refcnt protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
>> > * modification invalidates all existing locks.
>> > *
>> > * We must use ACQUIRE semantics for the mm_lock_seq so that if we are
>> > @@ -735,9 +775,10 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > * This pairs with RELEASE semantics in vma_end_write_all().
>> > */
>> > if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == raw_read_seqcount(&vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {

One question here is would compiler optimize the read of vm_lock_seq here,
since we have read it at the beginning?

Or with the acquire fence added above, compiler won't optimize it.
Or we should use REACE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) here?

>>
>> The previous modification of this spot to raw_read_seqcount loses the
>> acquire fence, making the above comment not line up with the code.
>
>Is it? From reading the seqcount code
>(https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/include/linux/seqlock.h#L211):
>
>raw_read_seqcount()
> seqprop_sequence()
> __seqprop(s, sequence)
> __seqprop_sequence()
> smp_load_acquire()
>
>smp_load_acquire() still provides the acquire fence. Am I missing something?
>
>>
>> I don't know if the stock code (with down_read_trylock()) is correct as
>> is -- looks fine for cursory reading fwiw. However, if it indeed works,
>> the acquire fence stemming from the lock routine is a mandatory part of
>> it afaics.
>>
>> I think the best way forward is to add a new refcount routine which
>> ships with an acquire fence.
>
>I plan on replacing refcount_t usage here with an atomic since, as
>Hillf noted, refcount is not designed to be used for locking. And will
>make sure the down_read_trylock() replacement will provide an acquire
>fence.
>

Hmm.. refcount_t is defined with atomic_t. I am lost why replacing refcount_t
with atomic_t would help.

>>
>> Otherwise I would suggest:
>> 1. a comment above __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited saying there is an
>> acq fence issued later
>> 2. smp_rmb() slapped between that and seq accesses
>>
>> If the now removed fence is somehow not needed, I think a comment
>> explaining it is necessary.
>>
>> > @@ -813,36 +856,33 @@ static inline void vma_assert_write_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >
>> > static inline void vma_assert_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > {
>> > - if (!rwsem_is_locked(&vma->vm_lock.lock))
>> > + if (refcount_read(&vma->vm_refcnt) <= 1)
>> > vma_assert_write_locked(vma);
>> > }
>> >
>>
>> This now forces the compiler to emit a load from vm_refcnt even if
>> vma_assert_write_locked expands to nothing. iow this wants to hide
>> behind the same stuff as vma_assert_write_locked.
>
>True. I guess I'll have to avoid using vma_assert_write_locked() like this:
>
>static inline void vma_assert_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>{
> unsigned int mm_lock_seq;
>
> VM_BUG_ON_VMA(refcount_read(&vma->vm_refcnt) <= 1 &&
> !__is_vma_write_locked(vma,
>&mm_lock_seq), vma);
>}
>
>Will make the change.
>
>Thanks for the feedback!

--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me