Message-ID: <6f45d01a-7586-4d8a-8339-fdfbda4c971e@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 18:36:03 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Mike Rapoport
 <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 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 RESEND v3 03/10] mm/vma: rename is_vma_write_only(),
 separate out shared refcount put

On 1/22/26 14:01, Lorenzo Stoakes 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).
> 
> 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>

Again very useful, thanks!

> ---
>  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.

I think this part about spurious wakeups belongs more to the usage of the
function in vma_refcount_put()? Because there are no wakeups done here. So
it should be enough to explain how it can be false positive like in the
paragraph below.

> + *
> + * 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)

I wonder if a include/linux/ header should have such a generically named
function (I understand it's necessary for it to be here). Maybe prefix the
name and make the comment not a kerneldoc because it's going to be only the
vma locking implementation using it and not the vma locking end-users? (i.e.
it's "intermediate").

>  {
>  	/*
> -	 * 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)

Basically change are_readers_excluded() like this, with __vma prefix?

But this one could IMHO use use some comment (also not kerneldoc) saying
what the return value and *refcnt indicate?

> +{
> +	int oldcnt;
> +	bool detached;
> +
> +	detached = __refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt);
> +	if (refcnt)
> +		*refcnt = oldcnt - 1;
> +	return detached;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * 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
> -	 * 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