From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Don't unmap gup()ed page
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:25:09 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200904142225.10788.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f11576a0904140502h295faf33qcea9a39ff7f230a5@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 22:02:47 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 16:16:52 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >> @@ -547,7 +549,13 @@ int reuse_swap_page(struct page *page)
> >> SetPageDirty(page);
> >> }
> >> }
> >> - return count == 1;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * If we can re-use the swap page _and_ the end
> >> + * result has only one user (the mapping), then
> >> + * we reuse the whole page
> >> + */
> >> + return count + page_count(page) == 2;
> >> }
> >
> > I guess this patch does work to close the read-side race, but I slightly don't
> > like using page_count for things like this. page_count can be temporarily
> > raised for reasons other than access through their user mapping. Swapcache,
> > page reclaim, LRU pagevecs, concurrent do_wp_page, etc.
>
> Yes, that's trade-off.
> your early decow also can misjudge and make unnecessary copy.
Yes indeed it can. Although it would only ever do so in case of pages
that have had get_user_pages run against them previously, and not from
random interactions from any other parts of the kernel.
I would be interested, using an anon vma field as you say for keeping
a gup count... it could potentially be used to avoid the extra copy.
But hmm, I don't have much time to go down that path so long as the
basic concept of my proposal is in question.
> >> /*
> >> + * Don't pull an anonymous page out from under get_user_pages.
> >> + * GUP carefully breaks COW and raises page count (while holding
> >> + * pte_lock, as we have here) to make sure that the page
> >> + * cannot be freed. If we unmap that page here, a user write
> >> + * access to the virtual address will bring back the page, but
> >> + * its raised count will (ironically) be taken to mean it's not
> >> + * an exclusive swap page, do_wp_page will replace it by a copy
> >> + * page, and the user never get to see the data GUP was holding
> >> + * the original page for.
> >> + *
> >> + * This test is also useful for when swapoff (unuse_process) has
> >> + * to drop page lock: its reference to the page stops existing
> >> + * ptes from being unmapped, so swapoff can make progress.
> >> + */
> >> + if (PageSwapCache(page) &&
> >> + page_count(page) != page_mapcount(page) + 2) {
> >> + ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> >> + goto out_unmap;
> >> + }
> >
> > I guess it does add another constraint to the VM, ie. not allowed to
> > unmap an anonymous page with elevated refcount. Maybe not a big deal
> > now, but I think it is enough that it should be noted. If you squint,
> > this could actually be more complex/intrusive to the wider VM than my
> > copy on fork (which is basically exactly like a manual do_wp_page at
> > fork time).
>
> I agree this code effect widely kernel activity.
> but actually, in past days, the kernel did the same behavior. then
> almost core code is
> page_count checking safe.
>
> but Yes, we need to afraid newer code don't works with this code...
>
>
> > And.... I don't think this is safe against a concurrent gup_fast()
> > (which helps my point).
>
> Could you please explain more detail ?
>
+ if (PageSwapCache(page) &&
+ page_count(page) != page_mapcount(page) + 2) {
+ ret = SWAP_FAIL;
+ goto out_unmap;
+ }
Now if another thread does a get_user_pages_fast after it passes this
check, it can take a gup reference to the page which is now about to
be unmapped. Then after it is unmapped, if a wp fault is caused on the
page, then it will not be reused and thus you lose data as explained
in your big comment.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-14 12:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090414151204.C647.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2009-04-14 6:16 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Don't unmap gup()ed page KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 9:25 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-14 12:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 12:25 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2009-04-14 13:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 14:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 14:26 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-14 14:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 14:42 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-14 15:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-15 8:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-15 8:22 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-15 9:22 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-15 10:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-15 11:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-15 11:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-15 11:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-19 12:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 14:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 6:18 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 2/6] mm, directio: fix fork vs direct-io race (read(2) side IOW gup(write) side) KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:25 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 16:45 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-04-14 17:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 18:10 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-04-14 19:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 6:19 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 3/6] nfs, direct-io: fix fork vs direct-io race on nfs KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 16:48 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-04-14 6:20 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 4/6] aio: Don't inherit aio ring memory at fork KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 13:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-04-14 16:01 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-04-15 0:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-15 2:44 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-04-15 3:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:21 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 5/6] don't use bio-map in read() path KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:23 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 6/6] fix wrong get_user_pages usage in iovlock.c KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:56 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-14 6:58 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-15 8:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-17 15:07 ` Sosnowski, Maciej
2009-04-19 12:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-23 12:48 ` Sosnowski, Maciej
2009-04-14 8:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] IO pinning(get_user_pages()) vs fork race fix Nick Piggin
2009-04-14 9:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 9:37 ` Nick Piggin
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=200904142225.10788.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).