On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:21 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/26/24 18:07, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > To enable SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU for vma cache we need to ensure that > > object reuse before RCU grace period is over will be detected by > > lock_vma_under_rcu(). Current checks are sufficient as long as vma > > is detached before it is freed. Implement this guarantee by calling > > vma_ensure_detached() before vma is freed and make vm_area_cachep > > SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU. This will facilitate vm_area_struct reuse and > > will minimize the number of call_rcu() calls. > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I've noticed vm_area_dup() went back to the approach of "we memcpy > everything including vma_lock and detached (now the vm_refcnt) followed by a > vma_init_lock(..., true) that does refcount_set(&vma->vm_refcnt, 0); > Is that now safe against a racing lock_vma_under_rcu()? I think it's not? I think it's safe because vma created by vm_area_dup() is not in the vma tree yet, so lock_vma_under_rcu() does not see it until it's added into the tree. Note also that at the time when the new vma gets added into the tree, the vma has to be write-locked (vma_iter_store()->vma_mark_attached()->vma_assert_write_locked()). So, lock_vma_under_rcu() won't use the new vma even after it's added into the tree until we unlock the vma. >
