On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 10:12 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:52 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 4:16 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attempt to use RCU-protected per-VMA lock when looking up requested VMA
> > > > as much as possible, only falling back to mmap_lock if per-VMA lock
> > > > failed. This is done so that querying of VMAs doesn't interfere with
> > > > other critical tasks, like page fault handling.
> > > >
> > > > This has been suggested by mm folks, and we make use of a newly added
> > > > internal API that works like find_vma(), but tries to use per-VMA lock.
> > > >
> > > > We have two sets of setup/query/teardown helper functions with different
> > > > implementations depending on availability of per-VMA lock (conditioned
> > > > on CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK) to abstract per-VMA lock subtleties.
> > > >
> > > > When per-VMA lock is available, lookup is done under RCU, attempting to
> > > > take a per-VMA lock. If that fails, we fallback to mmap_lock, but then
> > > > proceed to unconditionally grab per-VMA lock again, dropping mmap_lock
> > > > immediately. In this configuration mmap_lock is never helf for long,
> > > > minimizing disruptions while querying.
> > > >
> > > > When per-VMA lock is compiled out, we take mmap_lock once, query VMAs
> > > > using find_vma() API, and then unlock mmap_lock at the very end once as
> > > > well. In this setup we avoid locking/unlocking mmap_lock on every looked
> > > > up VMA (depending on query parameters we might need to iterate a few of
> > > > them).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > index 614fbe5d0667..140032ffc551 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > @@ -388,6 +388,49 @@ static int pid_maps_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > > PROCMAP_QUERY_VMA_FLAGS \
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> > > > +static int query_vma_setup(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* in the presence of per-VMA lock we don't need any setup/teardown */
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void query_vma_teardown(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* in the presence of per-VMA lock we need to unlock vma, if present */
> > > > + if (vma)
> > > > + vma_end_read(vma);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct vm_area_struct *query_vma_find_by_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* try to use less disruptive per-VMA lock */
> > > > + vma = find_and_lock_vma_rcu(mm, addr);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
> > > > + /* failed to take per-VMA lock, fallback to mmap_lock */
> > > > + if (mmap_read_lock_killable(mm))
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> > > > +
> > > > + vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
> > > > + if (vma) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We cannot use vma_start_read() as it may fail due to
> > > > + * false locked (see comment in vma_start_read()). We
> > > > + * can avoid that by directly locking vm_lock under
> > > > + * mmap_lock, which guarantees that nobody can lock the
> > > > + * vma for write (vma_start_write()) under us.
> > > > + */
> > > > + down_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> > >
> > > Hi Andrii,
> > > The above pattern of locking VMA under mmap_lock and then dropping
> > > mmap_lock is becoming more common. Matthew had an RFC proposal for an
> > > API to do this here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZivhG0yrbpFqORDw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/. It
> > > might be worth reviving that discussion.
> >
> > Sure, it would be nice to have generic and blessed primitives to use
> > here. But the good news is that once this is all figured out by you mm
> > folks, it should be easy to make use of those primitives here, right?
> >
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > >
> > > Later on in your code you are calling get_vma_name() which might call
> > > anon_vma_name() to retrieve user-defined VMA name. After this patch
> > > this operation will be done without holding mmap_lock, however per
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/mm_types.h#L582
> > > this function has to be called with mmap_lock held for read. Indeed
> > > with debug flags enabled you should hit this assertion:
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/madvise.c#L96.
> >
> > Sigh... Ok, what's the suggestion then? Should it be some variant of
> > mmap_assert_locked() || vma_assert_locked() logic, or it's not so
> > simple?
> >
> > Maybe I should just drop the CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK changes for now until
> > all these gotchas are figured out for /proc/<pid>/maps anyway, and
> > then we can adapt both text-based and ioctl-based /proc/<pid>/maps
> > APIs on top of whatever the final approach will end up being the right
> > one?
> >
> > Liam, any objections to this? The whole point of this patch set is to
> > add a new API, not all the CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK gotchas. My
> > implementation is structured in a way that should be easily amenable
> > to CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK changes, but if there are a few more subtle
> > things that need to be figured for existing text-based
> > /proc/<pid>/maps anyways, I think it would be best to use mmap_lock
> > for now for this new API, and then adopt the same final
> > CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK-aware solution.
>
> I agree that you should start simple, using mmap_lock first and then
> work on improvements. Would the proposed solution become useless with
> coarse mmap_lock'ing?
Sorry, it's not clear what you mean by "proposed solution"? If you
mean this new ioctl-based API, no it's still very useful and fast even
if we take mmap_lock.
But if you mean vm_lock, then I'd say that due to anon_vma_name()
complication it makes vm_lock not attractive anymore, because vma_name
will be requested pretty much always. And if we need to take mmap_lock
anyways, then what's the point of per-VMA lock, right?
I'd like to be a good citizen here and help you guys not add new
mmap_lock users (and adopt per-VMA lock more widely), but I'm not sure
I can solve the anon_vma_name() conundrum, unfortunately.
Ultimately, I do care the most about having this new API available for
my customers to take advantage of, of course.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return vma;
> > > > +}
> > > > +#else
> > > > static int query_vma_setup(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > {
> > > > return mmap_read_lock_killable(mm);
> > > > @@ -402,6 +445,7 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *query_vma_find_by_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsig
> > > > {
> > > > return find_vma(mm, addr);
> > > > }
> > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > static struct vm_area_struct *query_matching_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > unsigned long addr, u32 flags)
> > > > @@ -441,8 +485,10 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *query_matching_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > skip_vma:
> > > > /*
> > > > * If the user needs closest matching VMA, keep iterating.
> > > > + * But before we proceed we might need to unlock current VMA.
> > > > */
> > > > addr = vma->vm_end;
> > > > + vma_end_read(vma); /* no-op under !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK */
> > > > if (flags & PROCMAP_QUERY_COVERING_OR_NEXT_VMA)
> > > > goto next_vma;
> > > > no_vma:
> > > > --
> > > > 2.43.0
> > > >
