[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <476660c5-771c-0125-7d04-0e5a8d8bf65d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:57:14 +0100
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name, mhocko@...nel.org,
dave@...olabs.net, jack@...e.cz,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/24] mm: Dont assume page-table invariance during
faults
On 17/01/2018 04:04, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>
>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>>
>> Remove the reliance on the pte pointer.
>
> This needs a lot more explanation. So why is this code not needed with
> SPF only?
Hi Andi,
This is a good question, and I should detail that more in the commit's log.
Here is my response to Balbir when he asked for:
On 10/07/2017 19:48, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 09:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 19:52 +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>
>>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>>> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>>>
>>> Remove the relyance on the pte pointer.
>> ^^ reliance
>>
>> Looking at the changelog and the code the impact is not clear.
>> It looks like after this patch we always assume the pte is not
>> the same. What is the impact of this patch?
>
> Hi Balbir,
>
> In most of the case pte_unmap_same() was returning 1, which meaning that
> do_swap_page() should do its processing.
>
> So in most of the case there will be no impact.
>
> Now regarding the case where pte_unmap_safe() was returning 0, and thus
> do_swap_page return 0 too, this happens when the page has already been
> swapped back. This may happen before do_swap_page() get called or while in
> the call to do_swap_page(). In that later case, the check done when
> swapin_readahead() returns will detect that case.
>
> The worst case would be that a page fault is occuring on 2 threads at the
> same time on the same swapped out page. In that case one thread will take
> much time looping in __read_swap_cache_async(). But in the regular page
> fault path, this is even worse since the thread would wait for semaphore to
> be released before starting anything.
>
> Cheers,
> Laurent.
>
I'll add that to the commit's log.
Thanks,
Laurent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists