[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVw9Pc1sUZBL=wtLvsnBnkW5LAO5iu-i=T2oMOdwQfjHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:14:50 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"J??rn Engel" <joern@...fs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Downgrade mmap_sem before locking or populating on mmap
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:49:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> This is a serious cause of mmap_sem contention. MAP_POPULATE
>> and MCL_FUTURE, in particular, are disastrous in multithreaded programs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> ---
>>
>> Sensible people use anonymous mappings. I write kernel patches :)
>>
>> I'm not entirely thrilled by the aesthetics of this patch. The MAP_POPULATE case
>> could also be improved by doing it without any lock at all. This is still a big
>> improvement, though.
>
> Wait a minute. get_user_pages() relies on ->mmap_sem being held. Unless
> I'm seriously misreading your patch it removes that protection. And yes,
> I'm aware of execve-related exception; it's in special circumstances -
> bprm->mm is guaranteed to be not shared (and we need to rearchitect that
> area anyway, but that's a separate story).
Unless I completely screwed up the patch, ->mmap_sem is still held for
read (it's downgraded from write). It's just not held for write
anymore.
--Andy
--
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