[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y35kqkYQGW8ohKEa@monkey>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:21:30 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/12] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset()
thread-safe for pmd unshare
On 11/23/22 10:09, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:40:40AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Let me try understand the basic problem first:
> >
> > hugetlb walks page tables semi-lockless: while we hold the mmap lock, we
> > don't grab the page table locks. That's very hugetlb specific handling and I
> > assume hugetlb uses different mechanisms to sync against MADV_DONTNEED,
> > concurrent page fault s... but that's no news. hugetlb is weird in many ways
> > :)
> >
> > So, IIUC, you want a mechanism to synchronize against PMD unsharing. Can't
> > we use some very basic locking for that?
>
> Yes we can in most cases. Please refer to above paragraph [1] where I
> referred Mike's recent work on vma lock. That's the basic locking we need
> so far to protect pmd unsharing. I'll attach the link too in the next
> post, which is here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220914221810.95771-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com
>
> >
> > Using RCU / disabling local irqs seems a bit excessive because we *are*
> > holding the mmap lock and only care about concurrent unsharing
>
> The series wanted to address where the vma lock is not easy to take. It
> originates from when I was reading Mike's other patch, I forgot why I did
> that but I just noticed there's some code path that we may not want to take
> a sleepable lock, e.g. in follow page code.
Yes, it was the patch suggested by David,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221030225825.40872-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com/
The issue was that FOLL_NOWAIT could be passed into follow_page_mask. If so,
then we do not want potentially sleep on the mutex.
Since you both are on this thread, I thought of/noticed a related issue. In
follow_hugetlb_page, it looks like we can call hugetlb_fault if FOLL_NOWAIT
is set. hugetlb_fault certainly has the potential for sleeping. Is this also
a similar issue?
--
Mike Kravetz
> The other one is huge_pmd_share() where we may have the mmap lock for
> current mm but we're fundamentally walking another mm. It'll be tricky to
> take a sleepable lock in such condition too.
>
> I mentioned these cases in the other paragraph above [2]. Let me try to
> expand that in my next post too.
>
> It's debatable whether all the rest places can only work with either RCU or
> irq disabled, but the idea is at least it should speed up those paths when
> we still can. Here, irqoff might be a bit heavy, but RCU lock should be
> always superior to vma lock when possible, the payoff is we may still see
> stale pgtable data (since unsharing can still happen in parallel), while
> that can be completely avoided when we take the vma lock.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists