[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070223224145.GD1630@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:41:45 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RCU breaks anon_vma locking ?
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 12:23:03AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> If my understanding correct, vmscan can find a page which lives in a already
> anon_vma_unlink'ed vma. This is ok, the page is pinned, and page->mapping is
> not cleared until free_hot_cold_page().
>
> So page_lock_anon_vma() works correctly due to SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU even if
> anon_vma_unlink() has already freed anon_vma. In that case we should see
> list_empty(&anon_vma->head), we are safe.
>
> However, we are doing spin_unlock(anon_vma->lock) after page_lock_anon_vma(),
> and this looks unsafe to me because page_lock_anon_vma() does rcu_read_unlock()
> on return.
This would indeed be bad when using CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU! Good catch!!!
> This worked before because spin_lock() implied rcu_read_lock(), so rcu was
> blocked if page_lock_anon_vma() returns !NULL. With CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU this
> is not true (yes?), so it is possible that the slab returns the memory to
> the system and it is re-used when we write to anon_vma->lock.
>
> IOW, don't we need something like this
>
> static struct anon_vma *page_lock_anon_vma(struct page *page)
> {
> struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
> unsigned long anon_mapping;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> anon_mapping = (unsigned long) page->mapping;
> if (!(anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_ANON))
> goto out;
> if (!page_mapped(page))
> goto out;
>
> anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> return anon_vma;
>
> out:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return NULL;
> }
>
> static inline void page_lock_anon_vma(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> {
> spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> ?
This look like a valid fix to me, at least as long as the lock is never
dropped in the meantime (e.g., to do I/O). If the lock -is- dropped in
the meantime, then presumably whatever is done to keep the page from
vanishing should allow an rcu_read_unlock() to be placed after each
spin_unlock(&...->lock) and an rcu_read_lock() to be placed before each
spin_lock(&...->lock).
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists