Message-ID: <564272AD.10203@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:41:49 -0800
From:	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Unmap pages if page fault raced with hole
 punch

On 11/09/2015 02:55 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 11:42 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>
>>> The 'next = start' code is actually from the original truncate_hugepages
>>> routine.  This functionality was combined with that needed for hole punch
>>> to create remove_inode_hugepages().
>>>
>>> The following code was in truncate_hugepages:
>>>
>>> 	next = start;
>>> 	while (1) {
>>> 		if (!pagevec_lookup(&pvec, mapping, next, PAGEVEC_SIZE)) {
>>> 			if (next == start)
>>> 				break;
>>> 			next = start;
>>> 			continue;
>>> 		}
>>>
>>>
>>> So, in the truncate case pages starting at 'start' are deleted until
>>> pagevec_lookup fails.  Then, we call pagevec_lookup() again.  If no
>>> pages are found we are done.  Else, we repeat the whole process.
>>>
>>> Does anyone recall the reason for going back and looking for pages at
>>> index'es already deleted?  Git doesn't help as that was part of initial
>>> commit.  My thought is that truncate can race with page faults.  The
>>> truncate code sets inode offset before unmapping and deleting pages.
>>> So, faults after the new offset is set should fail.  But, I suppose a
>>> fault could race with setting offset and deleting of pages.  Does this
>>> sound right?  Or, is there some other reason I am missing?
>>
>> I believe your thinking is correct.  But remember that
>> truncate_inode_pages_range() is shared by almost all filesystems,
>> and different filesystems have different internal locking conventions,
>> and different propensities to such a race: it's trying to cover for
>> all of them.
>>
>> Typically, writing is well serialized (by i_mutex) against truncation,
>> but faulting (like reading) sails through without enough of a lock.
>> We resort to i_size checks to avoid the worst of it, but there's often
>> a corner or two in which those checks are not quite good enough -
>> it's easy to check i_size at the beginning, but it needs to be checked
>> again at the end too, and what's been done undone - can be awkward.
> 
> Well, it looks like the hugetlb_no_page() routine is checking i_size both
> before and after.  It appears to be doing the right thing to handle the
> race, but I need to stare at the code some more to make sure.
> 
> Because of the way the truncate code went back and did an extra lookup
> when done with the range, I assumed it was covering some race.  However,
> that may not be the case.
> 
>>
>> I hope that in the case of hugetlbfs, since you already have the
>> additional fault_mutex to handle races between faults and punching,
>> it should be possible to get away without that "pincer" restarting.
> 
> Yes, it looks like this may work as a straight loop over the range of
> pages.  I just need to study the code some more to make sure I am not
> missing something.

I have convinced myself that hugetlb_no_page is coded such that page
faults can not race with truncate.  hugetlb_no_page handles the case
where there is no PTE for a faulted in address.  The general flow in
hugetlb_no_page for the no page found case is:
- check index against i_size, end if beyond
- allocate huge page
- take page table lock for huge page
- check index against i_size again,  if beyond free page and return
- add huge page to page table
- unlock page table lock for huge page

The flow for the truncate operation in hugetlb_vmtruncate is:
- set i_size
- take inode/mapping write lock
- hugetlb_vmdelete_list() which removes page table entries.  The page
  table lock will be taken for each huge page in the range
- release inode/mapping write lock
- remove_inode_hugepages() to actually remove pages

The truncate/page fault race we are concerned with is if a page is faulted
in after hugetlb_vmtruncate sets i_size and unmaps the page, but before
actually removing the page.  Obviously, any entry into hugetlb_no_page
after i_size is set will check the value and not allow the fault.  In
addition, if the value of i_size is set before the second check in
hugetlb_no_page, it will do the right thing.  Therefore, the only place to
race is after the second i_size check in hugetlb_no_page.

Note that the second check for i_size is with the page table lock for
the huge page held.  It is not possible for hugetlb_vmtruncate to unmap
the huge page before the page fault completes, as it must acquire the page
table lock.  This is the same as a fault happening before the truncate
operation starts and is handled correctly by hugetlb_vmtruncate.

Another way to look at this is by asking the question, Is it possible to
fault on a page in the truncate range after it is unmapped by
hugetlb_vmtruncate/hugetlb_vmdelete_list?  To unmap a page,
hugetlb_vmtruncate will:
- set i_size
- take page table lock for huge page
- unmap page
- release page table lock for page

In order to fault in the page, it must take the same page table lock and
check i_size.  I do not know of any way for the faulting code to get an
old value for i_size.

Please let me know if my reasoning is incorrect.  I will code up a new
(simpler) version of remove_inode_hugepages with the assumption that
truncate can not race with page faults.

Also, I wrote a fairly simple test to have truncate race with page faults.
It was quite easy to hit the second check in hugetlb_no_page where it
notices index is beyond i_size and backs out of the fault.  Even after
adding delays in strategic locations of the fault and truncate code, I
could not cause a race as observed by remove_inode_hugepages.
-- 
Mike Kravetz
--
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