On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:07 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:00 AM 'Liam R. Howlett' via kernel-team
> <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> [241218 12:58]:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 9:44 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:36:42AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > You will not. vms_complete_munmap_vmas() will call remove_vma() to
> > > > > > remove PTEs IIRC, and if you do start_write() and detach() before
> > > > > > dropping mmap_lock_write, you should be good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I think we will have to move mmap_write_downgrade() inside
> > > > > vms_complete_munmap_vmas() to be called after remove_vma().
> > > > > vms_clear_ptes() is using vmas, so we can't move remove_vma() before
> > > > > mmap_write_downgrade().
> > > >
> > > > Why ?!
> > > >
> > > > vms_clear_ptes() and remove_vma() are fine where they are -- there is no
> > > > concurrency left at this point.
> > > >
> > > > Note that by doing vma_start_write() inside vms_complete_munmap_vmas(),
> > > > which is *after* the vmas have been unhooked from the mm, you wait for
> > > > any concurrent user to go away.
> > > >
> > > > And since they're unhooked, there can't be any new users.
> > > >
> > > > So you're the one and only user left, and code is fine the way it is.
> > >
> > > Ok, let me make sure I understand this part of your proposal. From
> > > your earlier email:
> > >
> > > @@ -1173,6 +1173,11 @@ static void vms_complete_munmap_vmas(struct
> > > vma_munmap_struct *vms,
> > > struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > >
> > > + mas_for_each(mas_detach, vma, ULONG_MAX) {
> > > + vma_start_write(next);
> > > + vma_mark_detached(next, true);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > mm = current->mm;
> > > mm->map_count -= vms->vma_count;
> > > mm->locked_vm -= vms->locked_vm;
> > >
> > > This would mean:
> > >
> > > vms_complete_munmap_vmas
> > > vma_start_write
> > > vma_mark_detached
> > > mmap_write_downgrade
> > > vms_clear_ptes
> > > remove_vma
> > >
> > > And remove_vma will be just freeing the vmas. Is that correct?
> > > I'm a bit confused because the original thinking was that
> > > vma_mark_detached() would drop the last refcnt and if it's 0 we would
> > > free the vma right there. If that's still what we want to do then I
> > > think the above sequence should look like this:
> > >
> > > vms_complete_munmap_vmas
> > > vms_clear_ptes
> > > remove_vma
> > > vma_start_write
> > > vma_mark_detached
> > > mmap_write_downgrade
> > >
> > > because vma_start_write+vma_mark_detached should be done under mmap_write_lock.
> > > Please let me know which way you want to move forward.
> > >
> >
> > Are we sure we're not causing issues with the MAP_FIXED path here?
> >
> > With the above change, we'd be freeing the PTEs before marking the vmas
> > as detached or vma_start_write().
>
> IIUC when we call vms_complete_munmap_vmas() all vmas inside
> mas_detach have been already write-locked, no?
Yeah, I think we can simply do this:
vms_complete_munmap_vmas
vms_clear_ptes
remove_vma
vma_mark_detached
mmap_write_downgrade
If my assumption is incorrect, assertion inside vma_mark_detached()
should trigger. I tried a quick test and so far nothing exploded.
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> >
