From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] page count lock for simpler put_page
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:07:46 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110813040746.GA1905@barrios-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANN689HQjNUDHWXn9PuvHxP0A-6_ypsW=jdt=UvnMr8M0xm-WA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 03:35:25PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:39:19PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >>>> I can see that the page_cache_get_speculative comment in
> >>>> include/linux/pagemap.h maps out one way to prevent the issue. If
> >>>> thread T continually held an rcu read lock from the time it finds the
> >>>> pointer to P until the time it calls get_page_unless_zero on that
> >>>> page, AND there was a synchronize_rcu() call somewhere between the
> >>>> time a THP page gets allocated and the time __split_huge_page_refcount
> >>>> might first get called on that page, then things would be safe.
> >>>> However, that does not seem to be true today: I could not find a
> >>>> synchronize_rcu() call before __split_huge_page_refcount(), AND there
> >>>> are also places (such as deactivate_page() for example) that call
> >>>> get_page_unless_zero without being within an rcu read locked section
> >>>> (or holding the zone lru lock to provide exclusion against
> >>>> __split_huge_page_refcount).
> >>
> >> Going forward, I can see several possible solutions:
> >> - Use my proposed page count lock in order to avoid the race. One
> >> would have to convert all get_page_unless_zero() sites to use it. I
> >> expect the cost would be low but still measurable.
> >
> > It's not necessary to apply it on *all* get_page_unless_zero sites.
> > Because deactivate_page does it on file pages while THP handles only anon pages.
> > So the race should not a problem.
>
> But it doesn't matter what kind of page the get_page_unless_zero call
> site hopes to get a reference on - if it doesn't already hold a
> reference on the page (either directly as a reference, or if a known
> mapping points to that page and the page table lock is taken or
> interrupts are disabled in order to guarantee the mapping won't get
> yanked), then the page can get yanked and a THP page could show up
> there before the call site gets a reference.
As I said, the caller of deactivate hold a reference at now so it should be okay.
But I admit deactivate_page doesn't have to call get_page_unless_zero but get_page
is enough if caller makes sure to hold a reference on the page like current situation.
I will add such comment on the deactivate_page and change get_page_unless_zero with
get_page for easy use in future.
I have't notice that.
Thanks for giving the chance to think of it, Michel.
>
> >> - Protect all get_page_unless_zero call sites with rcu read lock or
> >> lru lock (page_cache_get_speculative already has it, but there are
> >> others to consider), and add a synchronize_rcu() before splitting huge
> >> pages.
> >
> > I think it can't be a solution.
> > If we don't have any lock for protect write-side, page_count could be
> > unstable again while we peek page->count in
> > __split_huge_page_refcount after calling synchronize_rcu.
> > Do I miss something?
>
> The tail page count would be unstable for at most one rcu grace period
> after the page got allocated. This is guaranteed by making all
> get_page_unless_zero call sites make sure they somehow determine the
> page is not a THP tail page (for example because they found it in
> radix tree) before calling get_page_unless_zero and having an rcu read
> lock wrapping these two together. This is basically the protocol
> described in the comment for page_cache_get_speculative() in pagemap.h
Absolutely
>
> --
> Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
> A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-13 4:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-04 21:07 [RFC PATCH 0/3] page count lock for simpler put_page Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-04 21:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm: Replace naked page->_count accesses with accessor functions Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-04 21:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm: page count lock Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-07 14:00 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-04 21:07 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] mm: get_first_page_unless_zero() Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-07 14:13 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-05 6:39 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] page count lock for simpler put_page Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-07 14:25 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-09 11:04 ` Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-09 22:22 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-12 22:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-13 4:07 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2011-08-12 15:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-08-12 16:08 ` SPAM: " Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 16:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-08-12 17:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 23:45 ` Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-13 1:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-13 23:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-08-13 4:18 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-12 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-12 17:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-08-12 17:52 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-12 18:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 19:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-12 22:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 22:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-08-12 18:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 17:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-12 17:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-12 23:02 ` Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-12 22:50 ` Michel Lespinasse
2011-08-13 4:11 ` Minchan Kim
2011-08-12 16:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=20110813040746.GA1905@barrios-desktop \
--to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/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).