* Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> [210604 20:41]:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> [210525 19:45]:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:40 AM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Walks the vma's mapping a page and mlocks the page if any locked vma's are
> > > > > + * found. Once one is found the page is locked and the scan can be terminated.
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Can you please add that this requires the mmap_sem() lock to the
> > > > comments?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why does this require mmap_sem() lock? Also mmap_sem() lock of which mm_struct?
> >
> >
> > Doesn't the mlock_vma_page() require the mmap_sem() for reading? The
> > mm_struct in vma->vm_mm;
> >
>
> We are traversing all the vmas where this page is mapped of possibly
> different mm_structs. I don't think we want to take mmap_sem() of all
> those mm_structs. The commit b87537d9e2fe ("mm: rmap use pte lock not
> mmap_sem to set PageMlocked") removed exactly that.
>
> >
> > From what I can see, at least the following paths have mmap_lock held
> > for writing:
> >
> > munlock_vma_pages_range() from __do_munmap()
> > munlokc_vma_pages_range() from remap_file_pages()
> >
>
> The following path does not hold mmap_sem:
>
> exit_mmap() -> munlock_vma_pages_all() -> munlock_vma_pages_range().
Isn't this the benign race referenced by Hugh in the commit you point to
below?
>
> I would really suggest all to carefully read the commit message of
> b87537d9e2fe ("mm: rmap use pte lock not mmap_sem to set
> PageMlocked").
>
> Particularly the following paragraph:
> ...
> Vlastimil Babka points out another race which this patch protects against.
> try_to_unmap_one() might reach its mlock_vma_page() TestSetPageMlocked a
> moment after munlock_vma_pages_all() did its Phase 1 TestClearPageMlocked:
> leaving PageMlocked and unevictable when it should be evictable. mmap_sem
> is ineffective because exit_mmap() does not hold it; page lock ineffective
> because __munlock_pagevec() only takes it afterwards, in Phase 2; pte lock
> is effective because __munlock_pagevec_fill() takes it to get the page,
> after VM_LOCKED was cleared from vm_flags, so visible to try_to_unmap_one.
> ...
So this is saying the race with exit_mmap() isn't benign after all?
>
> Alistair, please bring back the VM_LOCKED check with pte lock held and
> the comment "Holding pte lock, we do *not* need mmap_lock here".
>
> One positive outcome of this cleanup patch is the removal of
> unnecessary invalidation (unmapping for kvm case) of secondary mmus.
