On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 14:20 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:17:39 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing preventing the anon_vma from being detached while we
> > are spinning to acquire the lock.
>
> Well. The comment there clearly implies (or states) that RCU
> protection is used to "guard against races". If that's inaccurate
> or incomplete, can we please get it fixed?
Good point, goes together with that last comment you made.
> The whole function makes be a bit queasy.
>
> - Fails to explain why it pulls all these party tricks to read
> page->mapping a single time. What code path are we defending against
> here?
>From what I understand we race with tear-down, anon_vma_unlock() takes
anon_vma->lock, so holding the lock pins the anon_vma.
So what we do to acquire a stable anon_vma from a page * is to, while
holding RCU read lock, very carefully read page->mapping, extract the
anon_vma and acquire the lock.
Now, the RCU usage is a tad tricky here, anon_vma uses
SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, which means that the slab will be RCU freed,
however not the objects allocated from it. This means that an anon_vma
can be re-used directly after its gets freed, but the storage will
remain valid for at least a grace period after the free.
So once we do have the lock we need to revalidate that we indeed got the
anon_vma we throught we got.
So its:
page->mapping = NULL;
anon_vma_unlink();
spin_lock()
spin_unlock()
kmem_cache_free(anon_vma);
VS
page_lock_anon_vma()'s trickery.
> - Then checks page_mapped() without having any apparent defence
> against page_mapped() becoming untrue one nanosecond later.
>
> - Checks page_mapped() inside the rcu_read_locked() section for
> inscrutable reasons.
Right, I think the page_mapped() stuff is just an early bail out.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
