On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:17:50PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 04:05:50PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:23:16PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 01:05:18AM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > > We don't want to expose page to fast gup running on a remote CPU > > > > before all local non-atomic ops on page flags are visible first. > > > > > > > > For anon page that isn't in swap cache, we need to make sure all > > > > prior non-atomic ops, especially __SetPageSwapBacked() in > > > > page_add_new_anon_rmap(), are order before set_pte_at() to prevent > > > > the following race: > > > > > > > > CPU 1 CPU1 > > > > set_pte_at() get_user_pages_fast() > > > > page_add_new_anon_rmap() gup_pte_range() > > > > __SetPageSwapBacked() SetPageReferenced() > > > > > > Is there a particular codepath that has what you listed for CPU? > > > After quick look, I only saw that we page_add_new_anon_rmap() called > > > before set_pte_at(). > > > > I think so. One in do_swap_page() and another in unuse_pte(). Both > > are on KSM paths. Am I referencing a stale copy of the source? > > I *think* it is a bug. Setting a pte before adding the page to rmap may > lead to rmap (like try_to_unmap() or something) to miss the VMA. > > Do I miss something? We have the pages locked in those two places, so for try_to_unmap() and the rest of page_vma_mapped_walk() users, they will block on the page lock: CPU 1 CPU 2 lock_page() set_pte_at() unlock_page() lock_page() try_to_unmap() page_vma_mapped_walk() pte_present() without holding ptl unlock_page() For others that don't use page_vma_mapped_walk(), they should either lock pages or grab ptl before checking pte_present(). AFAIK, the fast gup is the only one doesn't fall into the either category.
