[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <18a727fd-f006-9fae-d9ca-74b9004f0a8b@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:32:00 +0100
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section
On 21/03/2018 23:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:45:44PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Marking vma as deleted sounds good. The problem for my current approach is
>> the concurrent page fault may succeed if it access the not yet unmapped
>> section. Marking deleted vma could tell page fault the vma is not valid
>> anymore, then return SIGSEGV.
>>
>>> does not care; munmap will need to wait for the existing munmap operation
>>
>> Why mmap doesn't care? How about MAP_FIXED? It may fail unexpectedly, right?
>
> The other thing about MAP_FIXED that we'll need to handle is unmapping
> conflicts atomically. Say a program has a 200GB mapping and then
> mmap(MAP_FIXED) another 200GB region on top of it. So I think page faults
> are also going to have to wait for deleted vmas (then retry the fault)
> rather than immediately raising SIGSEGV.
Regarding the page fault, why not relying on the PTE locking ?
When munmap() will unset the PTE it will have to held the PTE lock, so this
will serialize the access.
If the page fault occurs before the mmap(MAP_FIXED), the page mapped will be
removed when mmap(MAP_FIXED) would do the cleanup. Fair enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists