On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:11 PM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx> [240212 13:08]:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:20 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > >
> > > > The current implementation has a deadlock problem:
> ...
>
> > > On contention you will now abort vs block.
> >
> > Is it? On contention mmap_read_trylock() will fail and we do the whole
> > operation using lock_mm_and_find_vmas() which blocks on mmap_lock. Am
> > I missing something?
>
> You are right, I missed the taking of the lock in the function call.
>
> > >
> > > > }
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Of course this would need defining lock_mm_and_find_vmas() regardless
> > > > of CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK. I can also remove the prepare_anon condition
> > > > in lock_vma().
> > >
> > > You are adding a lot of complexity for a relatively rare case, which is
> > > probably not worth optimising.
> > >
> ...
>
> >
> > Agreed on reduced complexity. But as Suren pointed out in one of his
> > replies that lock_vma_under_rcu() may fail due to seq overflow. That's
> > why lock_vma() uses vma_lookup() followed by direct down_read() on
> > vma-lock.
>
> I'd rather see another function that doesn't care about anon (I think
> src is special that way?), and avoid splitting the locking across
> functions as much as possible.
>
Fair point about not splitting locking across functions.
>
> > IMHO what we need here is exactly lock_mm_and_find_vmas()
> > and the code can be further simplified as follows:
> >
> > err = lock_mm_and_find_vmas(...);
> > if (!err) {
> > down_read(dst_vma...);
> > if (dst_vma != src_vma)
> > down_read(src_vma....);
> > mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > }
> > return err;
>
> If we exactly needed lock_mm_and_find_vmas(), there wouldn't be three
> lock/unlock calls depending on the return code.
>
> The fact that lock_mm_and_find_vmas() returns with the mm locked or
> unlocked depending on the return code is not reducing the complexity of
> this code.
>
> You could use a widget that does something with dst, and a different
> widget that does something with src (if they are different). The dst
> widget can be used for the lock_vma(), and in the
> lock_mm_and_find_vmas(), while the src one can be used in this and the
> lock_mm_and_find_vmas(). Neither widget would touch the locks. This way
> you can build your functions that have the locking and unlocking
> co-located (except the obvious necessity of holding the mmap_read lock
> for the !per-vma case).
>
I think I have managed to minimize the code duplication while not
complicating locking/unlocking.
I have added a find_vmas_mm_locked() handler which, as the name
suggests, expects mmap_lock is held and finds the two vmas and ensures
anon_vma for dst_vma is populated. I call this handler from
lock_mm_and_find_vmas() and find_and_lock_vmas() in the fallback case.
I have also introduced a handler for finding dst_vma and preparing its
anon_vma, which is used in lock_vma() and find_vmas_mm_locked().
Sounds good?
> I've also thought of how you can name the abstraction in the functions:
> use a 'prepare() and complete()' to find/lock and unlock what you need.
> Might be worth exploring? If we fail to 'prepare()' then we don't need
> to 'complete()', which means there won't be mismatched locking hanging
> around. Maybe it's too late to change to this sort of thing, but I
> thought I'd mention it.
>
Nice suggestion! But after (fortunately) finding the function names
that are self-explanatory, dropping them seems like going in the wrong
direction. Please let me know if you think this is a missing piece. I
am open to incorporating this.
> Thanks,
> Liam
