On 9/2/22 01:26, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:58 PM Kent Overstreet > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:34:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> > Resending to fix the issue with the In-Reply-To tag in the original >> > submission at [4]. >> > >> > This is a proof of concept for per-vma locks idea that was discussed >> > during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM this year [2], which concluded with >> > suggestion that “a reader/writer semaphore could be put into the VMA >> > itself; that would have the effect of using the VMA as a sort of range >> > lock. There would still be contention at the VMA level, but it would be an >> > improvement.” This patchset implements this suggested approach. >> > >> > When handling page faults we lookup the VMA that contains the faulting >> > page under RCU protection and try to acquire its lock. If that fails we >> > fall back to using mmap_lock, similar to how SPF handled this situation. >> > >> > One notable way the implementation deviates from the proposal is the way >> > VMAs are marked as locked. Because during some of mm updates multiple >> > VMAs need to be locked until the end of the update (e.g. vma_merge, >> > split_vma, etc). Tracking all the locked VMAs, avoiding recursive locks >> > and other complications would make the code more complex. Therefore we >> > provide a way to "mark" VMAs as locked and then unmark all locked VMAs >> > all at once. This is done using two sequence numbers - one in the >> > vm_area_struct and one in the mm_struct. VMA is considered locked when >> > these sequence numbers are equal. To mark a VMA as locked we set the >> > sequence number in vm_area_struct to be equal to the sequence number >> > in mm_struct. To unlock all VMAs we increment mm_struct's seq number. >> > This allows for an efficient way to track locked VMAs and to drop the >> > locks on all VMAs at the end of the update. >> >> I like it - the sequence numbers are a stroke of genuius. For what it's doing >> the patchset seems almost small. > > Thanks for reviewing it! > >> >> Two complaints so far: >> - I don't like the vma_mark_locked() name. To me it says that the caller >> already took or is taking the lock and this function is just marking that >> we're holding the lock, but it's really taking a different type of lock. But >> this function can block, it really is taking a lock, so it should say that. >> >> This is AFAIK a new concept, not sure I'm going to have anything good either, >> but perhaps vma_lock_multiple()? > > I'm open to name suggestions but vma_lock_multiple() is a bit > confusing to me. Will wait for more suggestions. Well, it does act like a vma_write_lock(), no? So why not that name. The checking function for it is even called vma_assert_write_locked(). We just don't provide a single vma_write_unlock(), but a vma_mark_unlocked_all(), that could be instead named e.g. vma_write_unlock_all(). But it's called on a mm, so maybe e.g. mm_vma_write_unlock_all()?
