linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Unconditionally lock folios when calling rmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+EESO6iqowMAOnBPJjERqZym_qvd6kx8BDMQG8+3xQSrNFytw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 21:29:39 -0700
From: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
To: "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, 
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	android-mm <android-mm@...gle.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unconditionally lock folios when calling rmap_walk()

Adding linux-mm mailing list. Mistakenly used the wrong email address.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:23 PM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, some callers of rmap_walk() conditionally avoid try-locking
> non-ksm anon folios. This necessitates serialization through anon_vma
> write-lock when folio->mapping and/or folio->index (fields involved in
> rmap_walk()) are to be updated. This hurts scalability due to coarse
> granularity of the lock. For instance, when multiple threads invoke
> userfaultfd’s MOVE ioctl simultaneously to move distinct pages from
> the same src VMA, they all contend for the corresponding anon_vma’s
> lock. Field traces for arm64 android devices reveal over 30ms of
> uninterruptible sleep in the main UI thread, leading to janky user
> interactions.
>
> Among all rmap_walk() callers that don’t lock anon folios,
> folio_referenced() is the most critical (others are
> page_idle_clear_pte_refs(), damon_folio_young(), and
> damon_folio_mkold()). The relevant code in folio_referenced() is:
>
> if (!is_locked && (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_ksm(folio))) {
>         we_locked = folio_trylock(folio);
>         if (!we_locked)
>                 return 1;
> }
>
> It’s unclear why locking anon_vma (when updating folio->mapping) is
> beneficial over locking the folio here. It’s in the reclaim path, so
> should not be a critical path that necessitates some special
> treatment, unless I’m missing something.
>
> Therefore, I propose simplifying the locking mechanism by
> unconditionally try-locking the folio in such cases. This helps avoid
> locking anon_vma when updating folio->mapping, which, for instance,
> will help eliminate the uninterruptible sleep observed in the field
> traces mentioned earlier. Furthermore, it enables us to simplify the
> code in folio_lock_anon_vma_read() by removing the re-check to ensure
> that the field hasn’t changed under us.
>
> Thanks,
> Lokesh