Re: [PATCH v3 04/20] mm: VMA sequence count

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On (09/08/17 20:06), Laurent Dufour wrote:
[..]
> @@ -903,6 +910,7 @@ int __vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>  		mm->map_count--;
>  		mpol_put(vma_policy(next));
>  		kmem_cache_free(vm_area_cachep, next);
> +		write_seqcount_end(&next->vm_sequence);
>  		/*
>  		 * In mprotect's case 6 (see comments on vma_merge),
>  		 * we must remove another next too. It would clutter
> @@ -932,11 +940,14 @@ int __vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>  		if (remove_next == 2) {
>  			remove_next = 1;
>  			end = next->vm_end;
> +			write_seqcount_end(&vma->vm_sequence);
>  			goto again;
> -		}
> -		else if (next)
> +		} else if (next) {
> +			if (next != vma)
> +				write_seqcount_begin_nested(&next->vm_sequence,
> +							    SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>  			vma_gap_update(next);
> -		else {
> +		} else {
>  			/*
>  			 * If remove_next == 2 we obviously can't
>  			 * reach this path.
> @@ -962,6 +973,10 @@ int __vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>  	if (insert && file)
>  		uprobe_mmap(insert);
>  
> +	if (next && next != vma)
> +		write_seqcount_end(&next->vm_sequence);
> +	write_seqcount_end(&vma->vm_sequence);


ok, so what I got on my box is:

vm_munmap()  -> down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem)
 do_munmap()
  __split_vma()
   __vma_adjust()  -> write_seqcount_begin(&vma->vm_sequence)
                   -> write_seqcount_begin_nested(&next->vm_sequence, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING)

so this gives 3 dependencies  ->mmap_sem   ->   ->vm_seq
                              ->vm_seq     ->   ->vm_seq/1
                              ->mmap_sem   ->   ->vm_seq/1


SyS_mremap() -> down_write_killable(&current->mm->mmap_sem)
 move_vma()   -> write_seqcount_begin(&vma->vm_sequence)
              -> write_seqcount_begin_nested(&new_vma->vm_sequence, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
  move_page_tables()
   __pte_alloc()
    pte_alloc_one()
     __alloc_pages_nodemask()
      fs_reclaim_acquire()


I think here we have prepare_alloc_pages() call, that does

        -> fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_mask)
        -> fs_reclaim_release(gfp_mask)

so that adds one more dependency  ->mmap_sem   ->   ->vm_seq    ->   fs_reclaim
                                  ->mmap_sem   ->   ->vm_seq/1  ->   fs_reclaim


now, under memory pressure we hit the slow path and perform direct
reclaim. direct reclaim is done under fs_reclaim lock, so we end up
with the following call chain

__alloc_pages_nodemask()
 __alloc_pages_slowpath()
  __perform_reclaim()       ->   fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_mask);
   try_to_free_pages()
    shrink_node()
     shrink_active_list()
      rmap_walk_file()      ->   i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);


and this break the existing dependency. since we now take the leaf lock
(fs_reclaim) first and the the root lock (->mmap_sem).


well, seems to be the case.

	-ss