From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32C32C63797 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:47:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NwybC3jZlz3bWq for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:47:35 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=P5cLpNHv; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org (client-ip=2001:8b0:10b:1236::1; helo=casper.infradead.org; envelope-from=willy@infradead.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=P5cLpNHv; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NwyZ72Rxxz3bNg for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:46:38 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=Y+G3RMYpPUCpeVuUHshColV5JZSGDtGhPdizzIP2wms=; b=P5cLpNHv6wO/jMH62R5ivyuODF 9VsvXC8b/excwArNe/KRkxWV2mLKsX2xgsbEwt66Kpn346Prm3dUGTZPNLMImD+nitRxhxo3xsvrJ mfWg3QFSX5Pnkn3FwXGIL0mp4sWpaCgjBACW/+8RJtWIR3s1pBjFwfBDXT+otbyR6bwQonX/+BNxd m4lbN1/gZznRAQ0EpxpP7GMJZxelmPWujsE6/6vtlABgFHE/nyJ+bG6wPajtevQ+GbMdPYR+7Tt7o zrVDxwqxl2pwLVtaerw4OF9cO5ys5rZNxm/Sm8Y2+JIni90YzxmlfVcFMmeuOLlaAh3xxs8PtamWR Fca2JJYQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pHenU-009Pje-4O; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:46:12 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:46:12 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Suren Baghdasaryan Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock Message-ID: References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-42-surenb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: michel@lespinasse.org, joelaf@google.com, songliubraving@fb.com, mhocko@suse.com, leewalsh@google.com, david@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de, peterx@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, edumazet@google.com, jglisse@google.com, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, arjunroy@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net, minchan@google.com, x86@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, gurua@google.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rientjes@google.com, axelrasmussen@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, soheil@google.com, paulmck@kernel.org, jannh@google.com, liam.howlett@oracle.com, shakeelb@google.com, luto@kernel.org, gthelen@google.com, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz, posk@google.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, peterjung1337@gmail.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, hughlynch@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tatashin@googl e.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:34:36PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:14 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:14:38AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > > > > @@ -643,20 +647,28 @@ static inline void vma_write_lock(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > > > static inline bool vma_read_trylock(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > > > { > > > > /* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result. */ > > > > - if (vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq)) > > > > + if (vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq)) > > > > return false; > > > > > > > > - if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock) == 0)) > > > > + if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_unless_negative(&vma->vm_lock->count))) > > > > return false; > > > > > > > > + /* If atomic_t overflows, restore and fail to lock. */ > > > > + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&vma->vm_lock->count) < 0)) { > > > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count)) > > > > + wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait); > > > > + return false; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Overflow might produce false locked result. > > > > * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check > > > > * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq > > > > * modification invalidates all existing locks. > > > > */ > > > > - if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) { > > > > - up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock); > > > > + if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) { > > > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count)) > > > > + wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait); > > > > return false; > > > > } > > > > > > With this change readers can cause writers to starve. > > > What about checking waitqueue_active() before or after increasing > > > vma->vm_lock->count? > > > > I don't understand how readers can starve a writer. Readers do > > atomic_inc_unless_negative() so a writer can always force readers > > to fail. > > I think the point here was that if page faults keep occuring and they > prevent vm_lock->count from reaching 0 then a writer will be blocked > and there is no reader throttling mechanism (no max time that writer > will be waiting). Perhaps I misunderstood your description; I thought that a _waiting_ writer would make the count negative, not a successfully acquiring writer.