[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C551A8.2040400@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:07:04 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] shmem: fix faulting into a hole, not taking i_mutex
On 07/15/2014 12:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> f00cdc6df7d7 ("shmem: fix faulting into a hole while it's punched") was
> buggy: Sasha sent a lockdep report to remind us that grabbing i_mutex in
> the fault path is a no-no (write syscall may already hold i_mutex while
> faulting user buffer).
>
> We tried a completely different approach (see following patch) but that
> proved inadequate: good enough for a rational workload, but not good
> enough against trinity - which forks off so many mappings of the object
> that contention on i_mmap_mutex while hole-puncher holds i_mutex builds
> into serious starvation when concurrent faults force the puncher to fall
> back to single-page unmap_mapping_range() searches of the i_mmap tree.
>
> So return to the original umbrella approach, but keep away from i_mutex
> this time. We really don't want to bloat every shmem inode with a new
> mutex or completion, just to protect this unlikely case from trinity.
> So extend the original with wait_queue_head on stack at the hole-punch
> end, and wait_queue item on the stack at the fault end.
Hi, thanks a lot, I will definitely test it soon, although my reproducer
is rather limited - it already works fine with the current kernel.
Trinity will be more useful here. But there's something that caught my
eye so I though I would raise the concern now.
> @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> shmem_falloc = inode->i_private;
Without ACCESS_ONCE, can shmem_falloc potentially become an alias on
inode->i_private and later become re-read outside of the lock?
> if (shmem_falloc &&
> - !shmem_falloc->mode &&
> + !shmem_falloc->waitq &&
> index >= shmem_falloc->start &&
> index < shmem_falloc->next)
> shmem_falloc->nr_unswapped++;
> @@ -1248,38 +1248,58 @@ static int shmem_fault(struct vm_area_st
> * Trinity finds that probing a hole which tmpfs is punching can
> * prevent the hole-punch from ever completing: which in turn
> * locks writers out with its hold on i_mutex. So refrain from
> - * faulting pages into the hole while it's being punched, and
> - * wait on i_mutex to be released if vmf->flags permits.
> + * faulting pages into the hole while it's being punched. Although
> + * shmem_undo_range() does remove the additions, it may be unable to
> + * keep up, as each new page needs its own unmap_mapping_range() call,
> + * and the i_mmap tree grows ever slower to scan if new vmas are added.
> + *
> + * It does not matter if we sometimes reach this check just before the
> + * hole-punch begins, so that one fault then races with the punch:
> + * we just need to make racing faults a rare case.
> + *
> + * The implementation below would be much simpler if we just used a
> + * standard mutex or completion: but we cannot take i_mutex in fault,
> + * and bloating every shmem inode for this unlikely case would be sad.
> */
> if (unlikely(inode->i_private)) {
> struct shmem_falloc *shmem_falloc;
>
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> shmem_falloc = inode->i_private;
Same here.
> - if (!shmem_falloc ||
> - shmem_falloc->mode != FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE ||
> - vmf->pgoff < shmem_falloc->start ||
> - vmf->pgoff >= shmem_falloc->next)
> - shmem_falloc = NULL;
> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> - /*
> - * i_lock has protected us from taking shmem_falloc seriously
> - * once return from shmem_fallocate() went back up that stack.
> - * i_lock does not serialize with i_mutex at all, but it does
> - * not matter if sometimes we wait unnecessarily, or sometimes
> - * miss out on waiting: we just need to make those cases rare.
> - */
> - if (shmem_falloc) {
> + if (shmem_falloc &&
> + shmem_falloc->waitq &&
Here it's operating outside of lock.
> + vmf->pgoff >= shmem_falloc->start &&
> + vmf->pgoff < shmem_falloc->next) {
> + wait_queue_head_t *shmem_falloc_waitq;
> + DEFINE_WAIT(shmem_fault_wait);
> +
> + ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> if ((vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY) &&
> !(vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)) {
> + /* It's polite to up mmap_sem if we can */
> up_read(&vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem);
> - mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> - return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> + ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> }
> - /* cond_resched? Leave that to GUP or return to user */
> - return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> +
> + shmem_falloc_waitq = shmem_falloc->waitq;
> + prepare_to_wait(shmem_falloc_waitq, &shmem_fault_wait,
> + TASK_KILLABLE);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + schedule();
> +
> + /*
> + * shmem_falloc_waitq points into the shmem_fallocate()
> + * stack of the hole-punching task: shmem_falloc_waitq
> + * is usually invalid by the time we reach here, but
> + * finish_wait() does not dereference it in that case;
> + * though i_lock needed lest racing with wake_up_all().
> + */
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + finish_wait(shmem_falloc_waitq, &shmem_fault_wait);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + return ret;
> }
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> }
>
> error = shmem_getpage(inode, vmf->pgoff, &vmf->page, SGP_CACHE, &ret);
--
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