Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:02:46 -0700 Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Setting and clearing mm->tlb_flush_pending can be performed by multiple
>> threads, since mmap_sem may only be acquired for read in task_numa_work.
>> If this happens, tlb_flush_pending may be cleared while one of the
>> threads still changes PTEs and batches TLB flushes.
>>
>> As a result, TLB flushes can be skipped because the indication of
>> pending TLB flushes is lost, for instance due to race between
>> migration and change_protection_range (just as in the scenario that
>> caused the introduction of tlb_flush_pending).
>>
>> The feasibility of such a scenario was confirmed by adding assertion to
>> check tlb_flush_pending is not set by two threads, adding artificial
>> latency in change_protection_range() and using sysctl to reduce
>> kernel.numa_balancing_scan_delay_ms.
>>
>> Fixes: 20841405940e ("mm: fix TLB flush race between migration, and
>> change_protection_range")
>
> The changelog doesn't describe the user-visible effects of the bug (it
> should always do so, please). But it is presumably a data-corruption
> bug so I suggest that a -stable backport is warranted?
Yes, although I did not encounter an actual memory corruption.
>
> It has been there for 4 years so I'm thinking we can hold off a
> mainline (and hence -stable) merge until 4.13-rc1, yes?
>
>
> One thought:
>
>> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -528,11 +528,11 @@ static inline cpumask_t *mm_cpumask(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> static inline bool mm_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> barrier();
>> - return mm->tlb_flush_pending;
>> + return atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_pending) > 0;
>> }
>> static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> - mm->tlb_flush_pending = true;
>> + atomic_inc(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
>>
>> /*
>> * Guarantee that the tlb_flush_pending store does not leak into the
>> @@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> static inline void clear_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> barrier();
>> - mm->tlb_flush_pending = false;
>> + atomic_dec(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
>> }
>> #else
>
> Do we still need the barrier()s or is it OK to let the atomic op do
> that for us (with a suitable code comment).
I will submit v2. However, I really don’t understand the comment on
mm_tlb_flush_pending():
/*
* Memory barriers to keep this state in sync are graciously provided by
* the page table locks, outside of which no page table modifications happen.
* The barriers below prevent the compiler from re-ordering the instructions
* around the memory barriers that are already present in the code.
*/
But IIUC migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() does not call
mm_tlb_flush_pending() while the ptl is taken.
Mel, can I bother you again? Should I move the flush in
migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() till after the ptl is taken?
Thanks,
Nadav
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href
