From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill@shutemov.name,
ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net,
jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@gmail.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/11] mm: Dont assume page-table invariance during faults
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:48:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d719a861-d712-1876-b46c-7f9c1360196c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1499411222.23251.5.camel@gmail.com>
On 07/07/2017 09:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 19:52 +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>
>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>>
>> Remove the relyance on the pte pointer.
> ^^ reliance
>
> Looking at the changelog and the code the impact is not clear.
> It looks like after this patch we always assume the pte is not
> the same. What is the impact of this patch?
Hi Balbir,
In most of the case pte_unmap_same() was returning 1, which meaning that
do_swap_page() should do its processing.
So in most of the case there will be no impact.
Now regarding the case where pte_unmap_safe() was returning 0, and thus
do_swap_page return 0 too, this happens when the page has already been
swapped back. This may happen before do_swap_page() get called or while in
the call to do_swap_page(). In that later case, the check done when
swapin_readahead() returns will detect that case.
The worst case would be that a page fault is occuring on 2 threads at the
same time on the same swapped out page. In that case one thread will take
much time looping in __read_swap_cache_async(). But in the regular page
fault path, this is even worse since the thread would wait for semaphore to
be released before starting anything.
Cheers,
Laurent.
--
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:[~2017-07-10 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-16 17:52 [RFC v5 00/11] Speculative page faults Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 01/11] mm: Dont assume page-table invariance during faults Laurent Dufour
2017-07-07 7:07 ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-10 17:48 ` Laurent Dufour [this message]
2017-07-11 4:26 ` Balbir Singh
2017-08-08 10:04 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 9:45 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:11 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 02/11] mm: Prepare for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 10:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 03/11] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock " Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:16 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 04/11] mm: VMA sequence count Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:59 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 05/11] mm: fix lock dependency against mapping->i_mmap_rwsem Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 11:17 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:20 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 12:49 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-08 13:08 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-08 13:34 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 06/11] mm: Protect VMA modifications using VMA sequence count Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 07/11] mm: RCU free VMAs Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 08/11] mm: Provide speculative fault infrastructure Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour
2017-07-05 18:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 13:46 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-07-06 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 15:29 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-07-06 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 10/11] x86/mm: Add speculative pagefault handling Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 11/11] powerpc/mm: Add speculative page fault Laurent Dufour
2017-07-03 17:32 ` [RFC v5 00/11] Speculative page faults Laurent Dufour
2017-07-07 1:54 ` Balbir Singh
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=d719a861-d712-1876-b46c-7f9c1360196c@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).