Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGKRLshk1oWf1Nz4jhDrMGnkWs7qtWYaj=j_iQwPq0THQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 10:28:40 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        dave@...olabs.net, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
        arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:23 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:58:35PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 9:46 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:34:36PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:14 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:14:38AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > > > > > > @@ -643,20 +647,28 @@ static inline void vma_write_lock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > > > > >  static inline bool vma_read_trylock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >     /* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result. */
> > > > > > > -   if (vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
> > > > > > > +   if (vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
> > > > > > >             return false;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -   if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock) == 0))
> > > > > > > +   if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_unless_negative(&vma->vm_lock->count)))
> > > > > > >             return false;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +   /* If atomic_t overflows, restore and fail to lock. */
> > > > > > > +   if (unlikely(atomic_read(&vma->vm_lock->count) < 0)) {
> > > > > > > +           if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> > > > > > > +                   wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > > > > > > +           return false;
> > > > > > > +   }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Overflow might produce false locked result.
> > > > > > >      * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
> > > > > > >      * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
> > > > > > >      * modification invalidates all existing locks.
> > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > > -   if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
> > > > > > > -           up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> > > > > > > +   if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
> > > > > > > +           if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> > > > > > > +                   wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > > > > > >             return false;
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this change readers can cause writers to starve.
> > > > > > What about checking waitqueue_active() before or after increasing
> > > > > > vma->vm_lock->count?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand how readers can starve a writer.  Readers do
> > > > > atomic_inc_unless_negative() so a writer can always force readers
> > > > > to fail.
> > > >
> > > > I think the point here was that if page faults keep occuring and they
> > > > prevent vm_lock->count from reaching 0 then a writer will be blocked
> > > > and there is no reader throttling mechanism (no max time that writer
> > > > will be waiting).
> > >
> > > Perhaps I misunderstood your description; I thought that a _waiting_
> > > writer would make the count negative, not a successfully acquiring
> > > writer.
> >
> > A waiting writer does not modify the counter, instead it's placed on
> > the wait queue and the last reader which sets the count to 0 while
> > releasing its read lock will wake it up. Once the writer is woken it
> > will try to set the count to negative and if successful will own the
> > lock, otherwise it goes back to sleep.
>
> Then yes, that's a starvable lock.  Preventing starvation on the mmap
> sem was the original motivation for making rwsems non-starvable, so
> changing that behaviour now seems like a bad idea.  For efficiency, I'd
> suggest that a waiting writer set the top bit of the counter.  That way,
> all new readers will back off without needing to check a second variable
> and old readers will know that they *may* need to do the wakeup when
> atomic_sub_return_release() is negative.
>
> (rwsem.c has a more complex bitfield, but I don't think we need to go
> that far; the important point is that the waiting writer indicates its
> presence in the count field so that readers can modify their behaviour)

Got it. Ok, I think we can figure something out to check if there are
waiting write-lockers and prevent new readers from taking the lock.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists