Message-ID: <20250113014729.ms5sdfnhynlamgrk@master>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 01:47:29 +0000
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com,
	mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
	oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
	david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
	lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com,
	pasha.tatashin@...een.com, klarasmodin@...il.com,
	richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/17] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a
 reference count

On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 12:14:47PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 3:24 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:58PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> So there were quite a few iterations of the patch and I have not been
>> reading majority of the feedback, so it may be I missed something,
>> apologies upfront. :)
>>

Hi, I am new to memory barriers. Hope not bothering.

>> >  /*
>> >   * Try to read-lock a vma. The function is allowed to occasionally yield false
>> >   * locked result to avoid performance overhead, in which case we fall back to
>> > @@ -710,6 +742,8 @@ static inline void vma_lock_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >   */
>> >  static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >  {
>> > +     int oldcnt;
>> > +
>> >       /*
>> >        * Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result.
>> >        * We can use READ_ONCE() for the mm_lock_seq here, and don't need
>> > @@ -720,13 +754,19 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >       if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq.sequence))
>> >               return false;
>> >
>> > -     if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock.lock) == 0))
>> > +     /*
>> > +      * If VMA_LOCK_OFFSET is set, __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited() will fail
>> > +      * because VMA_REF_LIMIT is less than VMA_LOCK_OFFSET.
>> > +      */
>> > +     if (unlikely(!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt,
>> > +                                                   VMA_REF_LIMIT)))
>> >               return false;
>> >
>>
>> Replacing down_read_trylock() with the new routine loses an acquire
>> fence. That alone is not a problem, but see below.
>
>Hmm. I think this acquire fence is actually necessary. We don't want
>the later vm_lock_seq check to be reordered and happen before we take
>the refcount. Otherwise this might happen:
>
>reader             writer
>if (vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq) // check got reordered
>        return false;
>                       vm_refcnt += VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
>                       vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq
>                       vm_refcnt -= VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
>if (!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited())
>        return false;
>
>Both reader's checks will pass and the reader would read-lock a vma
>that was write-locked.
>

Here what we plan to do is define __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited() with
acquire fence, e.g. with atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(), right?

>>
>> > +     rwsem_acquire_read(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> >       /*
>> > -      * Overflow might produce false locked result.
>> > +      * Overflow of vm_lock_seq/mm_lock_seq 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
>> > +      * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_refcnt protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
>> >        * modification invalidates all existing locks.
>> >        *
>> >        * We must use ACQUIRE semantics for the mm_lock_seq so that if we are
>> > @@ -735,9 +775,10 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >        * This pairs with RELEASE semantics in vma_end_write_all().
>> >        */
>> >       if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == raw_read_seqcount(&vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {

One question here is would compiler optimize the read of vm_lock_seq here,
since we have read it at the beginning?

Or with the acquire fence added above, compiler won't optimize it.
Or we should use REACE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) here?

>>
>> The previous modification of this spot to raw_read_seqcount loses the
>> acquire fence, making the above comment not line up with the code.
>
>Is it? From reading the seqcount code
>(https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/include/linux/seqlock.h#L211):
>
>raw_read_seqcount()
>    seqprop_sequence()
>        __seqprop(s, sequence)
>            __seqprop_sequence()
>                smp_load_acquire()
>
>smp_load_acquire() still provides the acquire fence. Am I missing something?
>
>>
>> I don't know if the stock code (with down_read_trylock()) is correct as
>> is -- looks fine for cursory reading fwiw. However, if it indeed works,
>> the acquire fence stemming from the lock routine is a mandatory part of
>> it afaics.
>>
>> I think the best way forward is to add a new refcount routine which
>> ships with an acquire fence.
>
>I plan on replacing refcount_t usage here with an atomic since, as
>Hillf noted, refcount is not designed to be used for locking. And will
>make sure the down_read_trylock() replacement will provide an acquire
>fence.
>

Hmm.. refcount_t is defined with atomic_t. I am lost why replacing refcount_t
with atomic_t would help.

>>
>> Otherwise I would suggest:
>> 1. a comment above __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited saying there is an
>>    acq fence issued later
>> 2. smp_rmb() slapped between that and seq accesses
>>
>> If the now removed fence is somehow not needed, I think a comment
>> explaining it is necessary.
>>
>> > @@ -813,36 +856,33 @@ static inline void vma_assert_write_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >
>> >  static inline void vma_assert_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >  {
>> > -     if (!rwsem_is_locked(&vma->vm_lock.lock))
>> > +     if (refcount_read(&vma->vm_refcnt) <= 1)
>> >               vma_assert_write_locked(vma);
>> >  }
>> >
>>
>> This now forces the compiler to emit a load from vm_refcnt even if
>> vma_assert_write_locked expands to nothing. iow this wants to hide
>> behind the same stuff as vma_assert_write_locked.
>
>True. I guess I'll have to avoid using vma_assert_write_locked() like this:
>
>static inline void vma_assert_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>{
>        unsigned int mm_lock_seq;
>
>        VM_BUG_ON_VMA(refcount_read(&vma->vm_refcnt) <= 1 &&
>                                          !__is_vma_write_locked(vma,
>&mm_lock_seq), vma);
>}
>
>Will make the change.
>
>Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Powered by blists - more mailing lists