On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:58PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
So there were quite a few iterations of the patch and I have not been
reading majority of the feedback, so it may be I missed something,
apologies upfront. :)
> /*
> * Try to read-lock a vma. The function is allowed to occasionally yield false
> * locked result to avoid performance overhead, in which case we fall back to
> @@ -710,6 +742,8 @@ static inline void vma_lock_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> */
> static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> + int oldcnt;
> +
> /*
> * Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result.
> * We can use READ_ONCE() for the mm_lock_seq here, and don't need
> @@ -720,13 +754,19 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq.sequence))
> return false;
>
> - if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock.lock) == 0))
> + /*
> + * If VMA_LOCK_OFFSET is set, __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited() will fail
> + * because VMA_REF_LIMIT is less than VMA_LOCK_OFFSET.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt,
> + VMA_REF_LIMIT)))
> return false;
>
Replacing down_read_trylock() with the new routine loses an acquire
fence. That alone is not a problem, but see below.
> + rwsem_acquire_read(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
> /*
> - * Overflow might produce false locked result.
> + * Overflow of vm_lock_seq/mm_lock_seq might produce false locked result.
> * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
> - * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
> + * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_refcnt protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
> * modification invalidates all existing locks.
> *
> * We must use ACQUIRE semantics for the mm_lock_seq so that if we are
> @@ -735,9 +775,10 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> * This pairs with RELEASE semantics in vma_end_write_all().
> */
> if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == raw_read_seqcount(&vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
The previous modification of this spot to raw_read_seqcount loses the
acquire fence, making the above comment not line up with the code.
I don't know if the stock code (with down_read_trylock()) is correct as
is -- looks fine for cursory reading fwiw. However, if it indeed works,
the acquire fence stemming from the lock routine is a mandatory part of
it afaics.
I think the best way forward is to add a new refcount routine which
ships with an acquire fence.
Otherwise I would suggest:
1. a comment above __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited saying there is an
acq fence issued later
2. smp_rmb() slapped between that and seq accesses
If the now removed fence is somehow not needed, I think a comment
explaining it is necessary.
> @@ -813,36 +856,33 @@ static inline void vma_assert_write_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>
> static inline void vma_assert_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> - if (!rwsem_is_locked(&vma->vm_lock.lock))
> + if (refcount_read(&vma->vm_refcnt) <= 1)
> vma_assert_write_locked(vma);
> }
>
This now forces the compiler to emit a load from vm_refcnt even if
vma_assert_write_locked expands to nothing. iow this wants to hide
behind the same stuff as vma_assert_write_locked.
