On 6/8/21 3:12 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:22:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi Hugh,
Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com> writes:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one
mmap_write_lock_killable()
addr = old_addr
lock(pte_ptl)
lock(pmd_ptl)
pmd = *old_pmd
pmd_clear(old_pmd)
flush_tlb_range(old_addr)
*new_pmd = pmd
*new_addr = 10; and fills
TLB
with new addr
and old
pfn
unlock(pmd_ptl)
ptep_clear_flush()
old pfn is free.
Stale
TLB entry
Fix this race by holding pmd lock in pageout. This still doesn't handle the race
between MOVE_PUD and pageout.
Fixes: 2c91bd4a4e2e ("mm: speed up mremap by 20x on large regions")
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAHk-=wgxvr04ebntxqfevontwnp6fdm+oj5vauqxp3s-huw...@mail.gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
This seems very wrong to me, to require another level of locking in the
rmap lookup, just to fix some new pagetable games in mremap.
But Linus asked "Am I missing something?": neither of you have mentioned
mremap's take_rmap_locks(), so I hope that already meets your need. And
if it needs to be called more often than before (see "need_rmap_locks"),
that's probably okay.
Hugh
Thanks for reviewing the change. I missed the rmap lock in the code
path. How about the below change?
mm/mremap: hold the rmap lock in write mode when moving page table entries.
To avoid a race between rmap walk and mremap, mremap does take_rmap_locks().
The lock was taken to ensure that rmap walk don't miss a page table entry
due to
PTE moves via move_pagetables(). The kernel does further optimization of
this lock such that if we are going to find the newly added vma after the
old vma, the rmap lock is not taken. This is because rmap walk would find
the
vmas in the same order and if we don't find the page table attached to
older vma we would find it with the new vma which we would iterate later.
The actual lifetime of the page is still controlled by the PTE lock.
This patch updates the locking requirement to handle another race condition
explained below with optimized mremap::
Optmized PMD move
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one
mmap_write_lock_killable()
addr = old_addr
lock(pte_ptl)
lock(pmd_ptl)
pmd = *old_pmd
pmd_clear(old_pmd)
flush_tlb_range(old_addr)
*new_pmd = pmd
*new_addr = 10; and fills
TLB with new addr
and old pfn
unlock(pmd_ptl)
ptep_clear_flush()
old pfn is free.
Stale TLB entry
Optmized PUD move:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
mremap(old_addr, new_addr) page_shrinker/try_to_unmap_one
mmap_write_lock_killable()
addr = old_addr
lock(pte_ptl)
lock(pud_ptl)
pud = *old_pud
pud_clear(old_pud)
flush_tlb_range(old_addr)
*new_pud = pud
*new_addr = 10; and fills
TLB with new addr
and old pfn
unlock(pud_ptl)
ptep_clear_flush()
old pfn is free.
Stale TLB entry
Both the above race condition can be fixed if we force mremap path to take rmap lock.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
Looks like it should be enough to address the race.
It would be nice to understand what is performance overhead of the
additional locking. Is it still faster to move single PMD page table under
these locks comparing to moving PTE page table entries without the locks?
The improvements provided by optimized mremap as captured in patch 11 is
large.
mremap HAVE_MOVE_PMD/PUD optimization time comparison for 1GB region:
1GB mremap - Source PTE-aligned, Destination PTE-aligned
mremap time: 2292772ns
1GB mremap - Source PMD-aligned, Destination PMD-aligned
mremap time: 1158928ns
1GB mremap - Source PUD-aligned, Destination PUD-aligned
mremap time: 63886ns
With additional locking, I haven't observed much change in those
numbers. But that could also be because there is no contention on these
locks when this test is run?
-aneesh
