On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:51:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:31:06 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:13:12 +0900
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:46 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> > > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmm..in my test, the case was.
> > > >
> > > > Before try_to_unmap:
> > > > mapcount=1, SwapCache, remap_swapcache=1
> > > > After remap
> > > > mapcount=0, SwapCache, rc=0.
> > > >
> > > > So, I think there may be some race in rmap_walk() and vma handling or
> > > > anon_vma handling. migration_entry isn't found by rmap_walk.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm..it seems this kind patch will be required for debug.
> > >
>
> Ok, here is my patch for _fix_. But still testing...
> Running well at least for 30 minutes, where I can see bug in 10minutes.
> But this patch is too naive. please think about something better fix.
>
> ==
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At adjust_vma(), vma's start address and pgoff is updated under
> write lock of mmap_sem. This means the vma's rmap information
> update is atoimic only under read lock of mmap_sem.
>
>
> Even if it's not atomic, in usual case, try_to_ummap() etc...
> just fails to decrease mapcount to be 0. no problem.
>
> But at page migration's rmap_walk(), it requires to know all
> migration_entry in page tables and recover mapcount.
>
> So, this race in vma's address is critical. When rmap_walk meet
> the race, rmap_walk will mistakenly get -EFAULT and don't call
> rmap_one(). This patch adds a lock for vma's rmap information.
> But, this is _very slow_.
Ok wow. That is exceptionally well-spotted. This looks like a proper bug
that compaction exposes as opposed to a bug that compaction introduces.
> We need something sophisitcated, light-weight update for this..
>
In the event the VMA is backed by a file, the mapping i_mmap_lock is taken for
the duration of the update and is taken elsewhere where the VMA information
is read such as rmap_walk_file()
In the event the VMA is anon, vma_adjust currently talks no locks and your
patch introduces a new one but why not use the anon_vma lock here? Am I
missing something that requires the new lock?
For example;
==== CUT HERE ====
mm: Take the anon_vma lock in vma_adjust()
vma_adjust() is updating anon VMA information without any locks taken.
In constract, file-backed mappings use the i_mmap_lock. This lack of
locking can result in races with page migration. During rmap_walk(),
vma_address() can return -EFAULT for an address that will soon be valid.
This leaves a dangling migration PTE behind which can later cause a
BUG_ON to trigger when the page is faulted in.
This patch takes the anon_vma->lock during vma_adjust to avoid such
races.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/mmap.c | 6 ++++++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index f90ea92..61d6f1d 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -578,6 +578,9 @@ again: remove_next = 1 + (end > next->vm_end);
}
}
+ if (vma->anon_vma)
+ spin_lock(&vma->anon_vma->lock);
+
if (root) {
flush_dcache_mmap_lock(mapping);
vma_prio_tree_remove(vma, root);
@@ -620,6 +623,9 @@ again: remove_next = 1 + (end > next->vm_end);
if (mapping)
spin_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_lock);
+ if (vma->anon_vma)
+ spin_unlock(&vma->anon_vma->lock);
+
if (remove_next) {
if (file) {
fput(file);
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>