[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2LD1Vxt3vbChUyD@x1n>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:24:05 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com>,
"# 5 . 10+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hugetlb: don't delete vma_lock in hugetlb
MADV_DONTNEED processing
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 06:44:10PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/30/22 11:52, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The loop comes from 7e027b14d53e ("vm: simplify unmap_vmas() calling
> > > convention", 2012-05-06), where zap_page_range() was used to replace a call
> > > to unmap_vmas() because the patch wanted to eliminate the zap details
> > > pointer for unmap_vmas(), which makes sense.
> > >
> > > I didn't check the old code, but from what I can tell (and also as Mike
> > > pointed out) I don't think zap_page_range() in the lastest code base is
> > > ever used on multi-vma at all. Otherwise the mmu notifier is already
> > > broken - see mmu_notifier_range_init() where the vma pointer is also part
> > > of the notification.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should just remove the loop?
> >
> > There is already zap_page_range_single() that does exactly that. Just need
> > to export it.
>
> I was thinking that zap_page_range() should perform a notification call for
> each vma within the loop. Something like this?
I'm boldly guessing what Nadav suggested was using zap_page_range_single()
and export it for MADV_DONTNEED. Hopefully that's also the easiest for
stable?
For the long term, I really think we should just get rid of the loop..
>
> @@ -1704,15 +1704,21 @@ void zap_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
> MA_STATE(mas, mt, vma->vm_end, vma->vm_end);
>
> lru_add_drain();
> - mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, vma, vma->vm_mm,
> - start, start + size);
> tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, vma->vm_mm);
> update_hiwater_rss(vma->vm_mm);
> - mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> do {
> - unmap_single_vma(&tlb, vma, start, range.end, NULL);
> + mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, vma,
> + vma->vm_mm,
> + max(start, vma->vm_start),
> + min(start + size, vma->vm_end));
> + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> + adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible(vma,
> + &range.start,
> + &range.end);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> + unmap_single_vma(&tlb, vma, start, start + size, NULL);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
> } while ((vma = mas_find(&mas, end - 1)) != NULL);
> - mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
> tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb);
> }
>
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that this patch is a fix that must be
> backported to stable. Therefore, I do not think we want to add too
> many changes out of the direct scope of the fix.
>
> We can always change things like this in follow up patches.
> --
> Mike Kravetz
>
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists