Re: [PATCH 12/41] mm: add per-VMA lock and helper functions to control it
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2023-01-17 18:35:57
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2023-01-17 18:35:57
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml
+locking maintainers On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:
Introduce a per-VMA rw_semaphore to be used during page fault handling instead of mmap_lock. Because there are cases when multiple VMAs need to be exclusively locked during VMA tree modifications, instead of the usual lock/unlock patter we mark a VMA as locked by taking per-VMA lock exclusively and setting vma->lock_seq to the current mm->lock_seq. When mmap_write_lock holder is done with all modifications and drops mmap_lock, it will increment mm->lock_seq, effectively unlocking all VMAs marked as locked.
[...]
+static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+ up_read(&vma->lock);
+}One thing that might be gnarly here is that I think you might not be allowed to use up_read() to fully release ownership of an object - from what I remember, I think that up_read() (unlike something like spin_unlock()) can access the lock object after it's already been acquired by someone else. So if you want to protect against concurrent deletion, this might have to be something like: rcu_read_lock(); /* keeps vma alive */ up_read(&vma->lock); rcu_read_unlock(); But I'm not entirely sure about that, the locking folks might know better. Also, it might not matter given that the rw_semaphore part is removed in the current patch 41/41 anyway...