Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF-tVr==bCf-PXJFKPn99yRjfONeDnDtPvTkGUfyuvtcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:07:47 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>, 
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, 
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] mm/vma: rename is_vma_write_only(), separate out
 shared refcount put

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 4:50 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> The is_vma_writer_only() function is misnamed - this isn't determining if
> there is only a write lock, as it checks for the presence of the
> VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG.
>
> Really, it is checking to see whether readers are excluded, with a
> possibility of a false positive in the case of a detachment (there we
> expect the vma->vm_refcnt to eventually be set to
> VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG, whereas for an attached VMA we expect it to
> eventually be set to VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG + 1).
>
> Rename the function accordingly.
>
> Relatedly, we use a finnicky __refcount_dec_and_test() primitive directly
> in vma_refcount_put(), using the old value to determine what the reference
> count ought to be after the operation is complete (ignoring racing
> reference count adjustments).

IIUC, __refcount_dec_and_test() can decrement the refcount by only 1
and the old value returned (oldcnt) will be the exact value that it
was before this decrement. Therefore oldcnt - 1 must reflect the
refcount value after the decrement. It's possible the refcount gets
manipulated after this operation but that does not make this operation
wrong. I don't quite understand why you think that's racy or finnicky.

>
> Wrap this into a __vma_refcount_put() function, which we can then utilise
> in vma_mark_detached() and thus keep the refcount primitive usage
> abstracted.
>
> Also adjust comments, removing duplicative comments covered elsewhere and
> adding more to aid understanding.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/mmap_lock.h | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  mm/mmap_lock.c            | 18 +++++-------
>  2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> index a764439d0276..0b3614aadbb4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> @@ -122,15 +122,27 @@ static inline void vma_lock_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma, bool reset_refcnt)
>         vma->vm_lock_seq = UINT_MAX;
>  }
>
> -static inline bool is_vma_writer_only(int refcnt)
> +/**
> + * are_readers_excluded() - Determine whether @refcnt describes a VMA which has
> + * excluded all VMA read locks.
> + * @refcnt: The VMA reference count obtained from vm_area_struct->vm_refcnt.
> + *
> + * We may be raced by other readers temporarily incrementing the reference
> + * count, though the race window is very small, this might cause spurious
> + * wakeups.
> + *
> + * In the case of a detached VMA, we may incorrectly indicate that readers are
> + * excluded when one remains, because in that scenario we target a refcount of
> + * VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG, rather than the attached target of
> + * VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG + 1.
> + *
> + * However, the race window for that is very small so it is unlikely.
> + *
> + * Returns: true if readers are excluded, false otherwise.
> + */
> +static inline bool are_readers_excluded(int refcnt)
>  {
>         /*
> -        * With a writer and no readers, refcnt is VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG
> -        * if the vma is detached and (VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG + 1) if it is
> -        * attached. Waiting on a detached vma happens only in
> -        * vma_mark_detached() and is a rare case, therefore most of the time
> -        * there will be no unnecessary wakeup.
> -        *
>          * See the comment describing the vm_area_struct->vm_refcnt field for
>          * details of possible refcnt values.
>          */
> @@ -138,18 +150,42 @@ static inline bool is_vma_writer_only(int refcnt)
>                 refcnt <= VM_REFCNT_EXCLUDE_READERS_FLAG + 1;
>  }
>
> +static inline bool __vma_refcount_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int *refcnt)
> +{
> +       int oldcnt;
> +       bool detached;
> +
> +       detached = __refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt);
> +       if (refcnt)
> +               *refcnt = oldcnt - 1;
> +       return detached;

IIUC there is always a connection between detached and *refcnt
resulting value. If detached==true then the resulting *refcnt has to
be 0. If so, __vma_refcount_put() can simply return (oldcnt - 1) as
new count:

static inline int __vma_refcount_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
       int oldcnt;

       __refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt);
       return oldcnt - 1;
}

And later:

newcnt = __vma_refcount_put(&vma->vm_refcnt);
detached = newcnt == 0;

> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * vma_refcount_put() - Drop reference count in VMA vm_refcnt field due to a
> + * read-lock being dropped.
> + * @vma: The VMA whose reference count we wish to decrement.
> + *
> + * If we were the last reader, wake up threads waiting to obtain an exclusive
> + * lock.
> + */
>  static inline void vma_refcount_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  {
> -       /* Use a copy of vm_mm in case vma is freed after we drop vm_refcnt */
> +       /* Use a copy of vm_mm in case vma is freed after we drop vm_refcnt. */
>         struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> -       int oldcnt;
> +       int refcnt;
> +       bool detached;
>
>         rwsem_release(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> -       if (!__refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt)) {
>
> -               if (is_vma_writer_only(oldcnt - 1))
> -                       rcuwait_wake_up(&mm->vma_writer_wait);
> -       }
> +       detached = __vma_refcount_put(vma, &refcnt);
> +       /*
> +        * __vma_enter_locked() may be sleeping waiting for readers to drop
> +        * their reference count, so wake it up if we were the last reader
> +        * blocking it from being acquired.
> +        */
> +       if (!detached && are_readers_excluded(refcnt))
> +               rcuwait_wake_up(&mm->vma_writer_wait);
>  }
>
>  /*
> diff --git a/mm/mmap_lock.c b/mm/mmap_lock.c
> index 75dc098aea14..ebacb57e5f16 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap_lock.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap_lock.c
> @@ -130,25 +130,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vma_start_write);
>
>  void vma_mark_detached(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  {
> +       bool detached;
> +
>         vma_assert_write_locked(vma);
>         vma_assert_attached(vma);
>
>         /*
> -        * We are the only writer, so no need to use vma_refcount_put().
> -        * The condition below is unlikely because the vma has been already
> -        * write-locked and readers can increment vm_refcnt only temporarily

I think the above part of the comment is still important and should be
kept intact.

> -        * before they check vm_lock_seq, realize the vma is locked and drop
> -        * back the vm_refcnt. That is a narrow window for observing a raised
> -        * vm_refcnt.
> -        *
>          * See the comment describing the vm_area_struct->vm_refcnt field for
>          * details of possible refcnt values.
>          */
> -       if (unlikely(!refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt))) {
> +       detached = __vma_refcount_put(vma, NULL);
> +       if (unlikely(!detached)) {
>                 /* Wait until vma is detached with no readers. */
>                 if (__vma_enter_locked(vma, true, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)) {
> -                       bool detached;
> -
> +                       /*
> +                        * Once this is complete, no readers can increment the
> +                        * reference count, and the VMA is marked detached.
> +                        */
>                         __vma_exit_locked(vma, &detached);
>                         WARN_ON_ONCE(!detached);
>                 }
> --
> 2.52.0
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists