[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c452d5db5b3d5879160ab62a9e0ac4481a6298a@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 07:53:24 +0000
From: "Yajun Deng" <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
To: "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: remove unnecessary page_table_lock
April 22, 2024 at 7:24 PM, "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 22.04.24 12:52, Yajun Deng wrote:
>
> >
> > page_table_lock is a lock that for page table, we won't change page
> >
> > table in __anon_vma_prepare(). As we can see, it works well in
> >
> > anon_vma_clone(). They do the same operation.
> >
>
> We are reusing mm->page_table_lock to serialize, not the *actual* low-level page table locks that really protect PTEs.
>
> With that locking gone, there would be nothing protection vma->anon_vma.
>
> Note that anon_vma_clone() is likely called with the mmap_lock held in write mode, which is not the case for __anon_vma_prepare() ...
Yes, anon_vma_clone() is called with the mmap_lock held. I added mmap_assert_write_locked(dst->vm_mm) to prove it.
I added mmap_assert_write_locked(vma->vm_mm) in __anon_vma_prepare() at the same time, it shows __anon_vma_prepare()
is also called with the mmap_lock held too.
>
> I think this change is wrong.
>
> -- Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists