Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Introduce Copy-On-Write to Page Table

David Hildenbrand
2023-02-14T18:00:01Z

On 14.02.23 18:54, Chih-En Lin wrote:
>>>
>>>> (2) break_cow_pte() can fail, which means that we can fail some
>>>> operations (possibly silently halfway through) now. For example,
>>>> looking at your change_pte_range() change, I suspect it's wrong.
>>>
>>> Maybe I should add WARN_ON() and skip the failed COW PTE.
>>
>> One way or the other we'll have to handle it. WARN_ON() sounds wrong for
>> handling OOM situations (e.g., if only that cgroup is OOM).
>
> Or we should do the same thing like you mentioned:
> "
> For example, __split_huge_pmd() is currently not able to report a
> failure. I assume that we could sleep in there. And if we're not able to
> allocate any memory in there (with sleeping), maybe the process should
> be zapped either way by the OOM killer.
> "
>
> But instead of zapping the process, we just skip the failed COW PTE.
> I don't think the user will expect their process to be killed by
> changing the protection.

The process is consuming more memory than it is capable of consuming.
The process most probably would have died earlier without the PTE
optimization.

But yeah, it all gets tricky ...

>
>>>
>>>> (3) handle_cow_pte_fault() looks quite complicated and needs quite some
>>>> double-checking: we temporarily clear the PMD, to reset it
>>>> afterwards. I am not sure if that is correct. For example, what
>>>> stops another page fault stumbling over that pmd_none() and
>>>> allocating an empty page table? Maybe there are some locking details
>>>> missing or they are very subtle such that we better document them. I
>>>> recall that THP played quite some tricks to make such cases work ...
>>>
>>> I think that holding mmap_write_lock may be enough (I added
>>> mmap_assert_write_locked() in the fault function btw). But, I might
>>> be wrong. I will look at the THP stuff to see how they work. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Ehm, but page faults don't hold the mmap lock writable? And so are other
>> callers, like MADV_DONTNEED or MADV_FREE.
>>
>> handle_pte_fault()->handle_pte_fault()->mmap_assert_write_locked() should
>> bail out.
>>
>> Either I am missing something or you didn't test with lockdep enabled :)
>
> You're right. I thought I enabled the lockdep.
> And, why do I have the page fault will handle the mmap lock writable in my mind.
> The page fault holds the mmap lock readable instead of writable.
> ;-)
>
> I should check/test all the locks again.
> Thanks.

Note that we have other ways of traversing page tables, especially,
using the rmap which does not hold the mmap lock. Not sure if there are
similar issues when suddenly finding no page table where there logically
should be one. Or when a page table gets replaced and modified, while
rmap code still walks the shared copy. Hm.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb