Re: [PATCH v7 01/11] mm/mremap: Fix race between MOVE_PMD mremap and pageout
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-08 11:17:46
Also in:
linuxppc-dev
On 6/8/21 3:12 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:22:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:quoted
Hi Hugh, Hugh Dickins [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:quoted
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3 mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one mmap_write_lock_killable() addr = old_addr lock(pte_ptl) lock(pmd_ptl) pmd = *old_pmd pmd_clear(old_pmd) flush_tlb_range(old_addr) *new_pmd = pmd *new_addr = 10; and fills TLB with new addr and old pfn unlock(pmd_ptl) ptep_clear_flush() old pfn is free. Stale TLB entry Fix this race by holding pmd lock in pageout. This still doesn't handle the race between MOVE_PUD and pageout. Fixes: 2c91bd4a4e2e ("mm: speed up mremap by 20x on large regions") Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAHk-=wgXVR04eBNtxQfevontWnP6FDm+oj5vauQXP3S-huwbPw@mail.gmail.com (local) Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <redacted>This seems very wrong to me, to require another level of locking in the rmap lookup, just to fix some new pagetable games in mremap. But Linus asked "Am I missing something?": neither of you have mentioned mremap's take_rmap_locks(), so I hope that already meets your need. And if it needs to be called more often than before (see "need_rmap_locks"), that's probably okay. HughThanks for reviewing the change. I missed the rmap lock in the code path. How about the below change? mm/mremap: hold the rmap lock in write mode when moving page table entries. To avoid a race between rmap walk and mremap, mremap does take_rmap_locks(). The lock was taken to ensure that rmap walk don't miss a page table entry due to PTE moves via move_pagetables(). The kernel does further optimization of this lock such that if we are going to find the newly added vma after the old vma, the rmap lock is not taken. This is because rmap walk would find the vmas in the same order and if we don't find the page table attached to older vma we would find it with the new vma which we would iterate later. The actual lifetime of the page is still controlled by the PTE lock. This patch updates the locking requirement to handle another race condition explained below with optimized mremap:: Optmized PMD move CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3 mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one mmap_write_lock_killable() addr = old_addr lock(pte_ptl) lock(pmd_ptl) pmd = *old_pmd pmd_clear(old_pmd) flush_tlb_range(old_addr) *new_pmd = pmd *new_addr = 10; and fills TLB with new addr and old pfn unlock(pmd_ptl) ptep_clear_flush() old pfn is free. Stale TLB entry Optmized PUD move: CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3 mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one mmap_write_lock_killable() addr = old_addr lock(pte_ptl) lock(pud_ptl) pud = *old_pud pud_clear(old_pud) flush_tlb_range(old_addr) *new_pud = pud *new_addr = 10; and fills TLB with new addr and old pfn unlock(pud_ptl) ptep_clear_flush() old pfn is free. Stale TLB entry Both the above race condition can be fixed if we force mremap path to take rmap lock. Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [off-list ref]Looks like it should be enough to address the race. It would be nice to understand what is performance overhead of the additional locking. Is it still faster to move single PMD page table under these locks comparing to moving PTE page table entries without the locks?
The improvements provided by optimized mremap as captured in patch 11 is large. mremap HAVE_MOVE_PMD/PUD optimization time comparison for 1GB region: 1GB mremap - Source PTE-aligned, Destination PTE-aligned mremap time: 2292772ns 1GB mremap - Source PMD-aligned, Destination PMD-aligned mremap time: 1158928ns 1GB mremap - Source PUD-aligned, Destination PUD-aligned mremap time: 63886ns With additional locking, I haven't observed much change in those numbers. But that could also be because there is no contention on these locks when this test is run? -aneesh