On 4/10/20 12:09 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
> On 4/10/2020 10:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 10/04/2020 19:54, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>> As I see, this down_read() from the trace is
>>>> down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem), where current->mm is set by use_mm()
>>>> just several lines above your change. So, what do you mean by passing? I
>>>> don't see do_madvise() __explicitly__ accepting mm as an argument.
>>> I think the sequence is:
>>>
>>> io_madvise()
>>> -> do_madvise(NULL, req->work.mm, ma->addr, ma->len, ma->advice)
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> -> down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)
>>>
>>> I added an assert in do_madvise() for a NULL mm value and hit it running the test.
>>>
>>>> What tree do you use? Extra patches on top?
>>> I'm using next-20200409 with no patches.
>> I see, it came from 676a179 ("mm: pass task and mm to do_madvise"), which isn't
>> in Jen's tree.
>>
>> I don't think your patch will do, because it changes mm refcounting with extra
>> mmdrop() in io_req_work_drop_env(). That's assuming it worked well before.
>>
>> Better fix then is to make it ```do_madvise(NULL, current->mm, ...)```
>> as it actually was at some point in the mentioned patch (v5).
>>
> Ok. Jens had suggested to use req->work.mm in the patch comments so
> let's just get him to confirm:
>
> "I think we want to use req->work.mm here - it'll be the same as
> current->mm at this point, but it makes it clear that we're using a
> grabbed mm."
We should just use current->mm, as that matches at that point anyway
since IORING_OP_MADVISE had needs_mm set.
Minchan, can you please make that change?
--
Jens Axboe
