Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm/hugetlb: Make page_vma_mapped_walk() safe to pmd unshare

Peter Xu
2022-12-06T17:42:08Z

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 12/05/22 15:52, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 11/29/22 14:35, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > Since page_vma_mapped_walk() walks the pgtable, it needs the vma lock
> > > to make sure the pgtable page will not be freed concurrently.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/rmap.h | 4 ++++
> > > mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 5 ++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
> > > index bd3504d11b15..a50d18bb86aa 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/highmem.h>
> > > #include <linux/pagemap.h>
> > > #include <linux/memremap.h>
> > > +#include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * The anon_vma heads a list of private "related" vmas, to scan if
> > > @@ -408,6 +409,9 @@ static inline void page_vma_mapped_walk_done(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> > > pte_unmap(pvmw->pte);
> > > if (pvmw->ptl)
> > > spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
> > > + /* This needs to be after unlock of the spinlock */
> > > + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(pvmw->vma))
> > > + hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(pvmw->vma);
> > > }
> > >
> > > bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw);
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> > > index 93e13fc17d3c..f94ec78b54ff 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> > > @@ -169,10 +169,13 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> > > if (pvmw->pte)
> > > return not_found(pvmw);
> > >
> > > + hugetlb_vma_lock_read(vma);
> > > /* when pud is not present, pte will be NULL */
> > > pvmw->pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, pvmw->address, size);
> > > - if (!pvmw->pte)
> > > + if (!pvmw->pte) {
> > > + hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(vma);
> > > return false;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > pvmw->ptl = huge_pte_lock(hstate, mm, pvmw->pte);
> > > if (!check_pte(pvmw))
> >
> > I think this is going to cause try_to_unmap() to always fail for hugetlb
> > shared pages. See try_to_unmap_one:
> >
> > while (page_vma_mapped_walk(&pvmw)) {
> > ...
> > if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
> > ...
> > /*
> > * To call huge_pmd_unshare, i_mmap_rwsem must be
> > * held in write mode. Caller needs to explicitly
> > * do this outside rmap routines.
> > *
> > * We also must hold hugetlb vma_lock in write mode.
> > * Lock order dictates acquiring vma_lock BEFORE
> > * i_mmap_rwsem. We can only try lock here and fail
> > * if unsuccessful.
> > */
> > if (!anon) {
> > VM_BUG_ON(!(flags & TTU_RMAP_LOCKED));
> > if (!hugetlb_vma_trylock_write(vma)) {
> > page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> > ret = false;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Can not think of a great solution right now.
>
> Thought of this last night ...
>
> Perhaps we do not need vma_lock in this code path (not sure about all
> page_vma_mapped_walk calls). Why? We already hold i_mmap_rwsem.

Exactly. The only concern is when it's not in a rmap.

I'm actually preparing something that adds a new flag to PVMW, like:

#define PVMW_HUGETLB_NEEDS_LOCK (1 << 2)

But maybe we don't need that at all, since I had a closer look the only
outliers of not using a rmap is:

__replace_page
write_protect_page

I'm pretty sure ksm doesn't have hugetlb involved, then the other one is
uprobe (uprobe_write_opcode). I think it's the same. If it's true, we can
simply drop this patch. Then we also have hugetlb_walk and the lock checks
there guarantee that we're safe anyways.

Potentially we can document this fact, which I also attached a comment
patch just for it to be appended to the end of the patchset.

Mike, let me know what do you think.

Andrew, if this patch to be dropped then the last patch may not cleanly
apply. Let me know if you want a full repost of the things.

Thanks,

--
Peter Xu