On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:40:44PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>On 08/01/2020 05.32, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 01:19:56PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> > This fixes some misconceptions in commit 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reuse
>> > mergeable anon_vma as parent when fork"). It merges anon-vma in unexpected
>> > way but fortunately still produces valid anon-vma tree, so nothing crashes.
>> >
>> > If in parent VMAs: SRC1 SRC2 .. SRCn share anon-vma ANON0, then after fork
>> > before all patches in child process related VMAs: DST1 DST2 .. DSTn will
>> > fork indepndent anon-vmas: ANON1 ANON2 .. ANONn (each is child of ANON0).
>> > Before this patch only DST1 will fork new ANON1 and following DST2 .. DSTn
>> > will share parent's ANON0 (i.e. anon-vma tree is valid but isn't optimal).
>> > With this patch DST1 will create new ANON1 and DST2 .. DSTn will share it.
>> >
>> > Root problem caused by initialization order in dup_mmap(): vma->vm_prev
>> > is set after calling anon_vma_fork(). Thus in anon_vma_fork() it points to
>> > previous VMA in parent mm.
>> >
>> > Second problem is hidden behind first one: assumption "Parent has vm_prev,
>> > which implies we have vm_prev" is wrong if first VMA in parent mm has set
>> > flag VM_DONTCOPY. Luckily prev->anon_vma doesn't dereference NULL pointer
>> > because in current code 'prev' actually is same as 'pprev'.
>> >
>> > Third hidden problem is linking between VMA and anon-vmas whose pages it
>> > could contain. Loop in anon_vma_clone() attaches only parent's anon-vmas,
>> > shared anon-vma isn't attached. But every mapped page stays reachable in
>> > rmap because we erroneously share anon-vma from parent's previous VMA.
>> >
>> > This patch moves sharing logic out of anon_vma_clone() into more specific
>> > anon_vma_fork() because this supposed to work only at fork() and simply
>> > reuses anon_vma from previous VMA if it is forked from the same anon-vma.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Reported-by: Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Fixes: 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reuse mergeable anon_vma as parent when fork")
>> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CALYGNiNzz+dxHX0g5-gNypUQc3B=8_Scp53-NTOh=zWsdUuHAw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/rmap.h | 3 ++-
>> > kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>> > mm/rmap.c | 23 +++++++++--------------
>> > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > index 988d176472df..560e4480dcd0 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > @@ -143,7 +143,8 @@ void anon_vma_init(void); /* create anon_vma_cachep */
>> > int __anon_vma_prepare(struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > void unlink_anon_vmas(struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > -int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > +int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma,
>> > + struct vm_area_struct *prev);
>> >
>> > static inline int anon_vma_prepare(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > {
>> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> > index 2508a4f238a3..c33626993831 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> > @@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ static __latent_entropy int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> > tmp->anon_vma = NULL;
>> > if (anon_vma_prepare(tmp))
>> > goto fail_nomem_anon_vma_fork;
>> > - } else if (anon_vma_fork(tmp, mpnt))
>> > + } else if (anon_vma_fork(tmp, mpnt, prev))
>> > goto fail_nomem_anon_vma_fork;
>> > tmp->vm_flags &= ~(VM_LOCKED | VM_LOCKONFAULT);
>> > tmp->vm_next = tmp->vm_prev = NULL;
>> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> > index b3e381919835..3c1e04389291 100644
>> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> > @@ -269,19 +269,6 @@ int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *dst, struct vm_area_struct *src)
>> > {
>> > struct anon_vma_chain *avc, *pavc;
>> > struct anon_vma *root = NULL;
>> > - struct vm_area_struct *prev = dst->vm_prev, *pprev = src->vm_prev;
>> > -
>> > - /*
>> > - * If parent share anon_vma with its vm_prev, keep this sharing in in
>> > - * child.
>> > - *
>> > - * 1. Parent has vm_prev, which implies we have vm_prev.
>> > - * 2. Parent and its vm_prev have the same anon_vma.
>> > - */
>> > - if (!dst->anon_vma && src->anon_vma &&
>> > - pprev && pprev->anon_vma == src->anon_vma)
>> > - dst->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>> > -
>> >
>> > list_for_each_entry_reverse(pavc, &src->anon_vma_chain, same_vma) {
>> > struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
>> > @@ -332,7 +319,8 @@ int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *dst, struct vm_area_struct *src)
>> > * the corresponding VMA in the parent process is attached to.
>> > * Returns 0 on success, non-zero on failure.
>> > */
>> > -int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma)
>> > +int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma,
>> > + struct vm_area_struct *prev)
>> > {
>> > struct anon_vma_chain *avc;
>> > struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
>> > @@ -342,6 +330,13 @@ int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma)
>> > if (!pvma->anon_vma)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > + /* Share anon_vma with previous VMA if it has the same parent. */
>> > + if (prev && prev->anon_vma &&
>> > + prev->anon_vma->parent == pvma->anon_vma) {
>> > + vma->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>> > + return anon_vma_clone(vma, prev);
>> > + }
>> > +
>>
>> I am afraid this one change the intended behavior. Let's put a chart to
>> describe.
>>
>> Commit 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reusemergeable anon_vma as parent when
>> fork") tries to improve the following situation.
>>
>> Before the commit, the behavior is like this:
>>
>> Parent process:
>>
>> +-----+
>> | pav |<-----------------+----------------------+
>> +-----+ | |
>> | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> |pprev | |pvma |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>>
>> Child Process
>>
>>
>> +-----+ +-----+
>> | av1 |<-----------------+ | av2 |<------------+
>> +-----+ | +-----+ |
>> | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> |prev | |vma |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>>
>>
>> Parent pprev and pvma share the same anon_vma due to
>> find_mergeable_anon_vma(). While the anon_vma_clone() would pick up different
>> anon_vma for child process's vma.
>>
>> The purpose of my commit is to give child process the following shape.
>>
>> +-----+
>> | av |<-----------------+----------------------+
>> +-----+ | |
>> | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> |prev | |vma |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>>
>> After this, we reduce the extra "av2" for child process. But yes, because of
>> the two reasons you found, it didn't do the exact thing.
>>
>> While if my understanding is correct, the anon_vma_clone() would pick up any
>> anon_vma in its process tree, except parent's. If this fails to get a reusable
>> one, anon_vma_fork() would allocate one, whose parent is pvma->anon_vma.
>>
>> Let me summarise original behavior:
>>
>> * if anon_vma_clone succeed, it find one anon_vma in the process tree, but
>> it could not be pvma->anon_vma
>> * if anon_vma_clone fail, it will allocate a new anon_vma and its parent is
>> pvma->anon_vam
>>
>> Then take a look into your code here.
>>
>> "prev->anon_vma->parent == pvma->anon_vma" means prev->anon_vma parent is
>> pvma's anon_vma. If my understanding is correct, this just match the second
>> case. For "prev", we didn't find a reusable anon_vma and allocate a new one.
>>
>> But how about the first case? prev reuse an anon_vma in the process tree which
>> is not parent's?
>
>If anon_vma_clone() pick old anon-vma for first vma in sharing chain (prev)
>then second vma (vma) will fork new anon-vma (unless pick another old anon-vma),
>then third vma will share it. And so on.
No, I am afraid you are not correct here. Or I don't understand your sentence.
This is my understanding about the behavior before my commit. Suppose av1 and
av2 are both reused from old anon_vma. And if my understanding is correct,
they are different from pvma->anon_vma. Then how your code match this
situatioin?
+-----+ +-----+
| av1 |<-----------------+ | av2 |<------------+
+-----+ | +-----+ |
| |
+-----------+ +-----------+
|prev | |vma |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Would you explain your understanding the second and third vma in your
sentence? Which case you are trying to illustrate?
>Fork works left to right - we don't known about next vma to predict sharing and
>choose better options.
>
>But reusing old vma doesn't allocates new one. It's better to not reuse them
You mean reuse old anon_vma here?
>second time because this makes tree less optimal (and actually not a tree anymore).
>This is just a trick to prevent unlimited growth anon-vma chains in background:
>while each anon-vma has at least one vma or two childs then their count is
>limited with count of vmas which are visible and limited.
>
>>
>> > /* Drop inherited anon_vma, we'll reuse existing or allocate new. */
>> > vma->anon_vma = NULL;
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Wei Yang
>> Help you, Help me
>>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
