Re: [PATCH] thp: tail page refcounting fix #3

[Michel Lespinasse]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:54:36PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Subject: thp: tail page refcounting fix
> 
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Michel while working on the working set estimation code, noticed that calling
> get_page_unless_zero() on a random pfn_to_page(random_pfn) wasn't safe, if the
> pfn ended up being a tail page of a transparent hugepage under splitting by
> __split_huge_page_refcount(). He then found the problem could also
> theoretically materialize with page_cache_get_speculative() during the
> speculative radix tree lookups that uses get_page_unless_zero() in SMP if the
> radix tree page is freed and reallocated and get_user_pages is called on it
> before page_cache_get_speculative has a chance to call get_page_unless_zero().
> 
> So the best way to fix the problem is to keep page_tail->_count zero at all
> times. This will guarantee that get_page_unless_zero() can never succeed on any
> tail page. page_tail->_mapcount is guaranteed zero and is unused for all tail
> pages of a compound page, so we can simply account the tail page references
> there and transfer them to tail_page->_count in __split_huge_page_refcount() (in
> addition to the head_page->_mapcount).
> 
> While debugging this s/_count/_mapcount/ change I also noticed get_page is
> called by direct-io.c on pages returned by get_user_pages. That wasn't entirely
> safe because the two atomic_inc in get_page weren't atomic. As opposed other
> get_user_page users like secondary-MMU page fault to establish the shadow
> pagetables would never call any superflous get_page after get_user_page
> returns. It's safer to make get_page universally safe for tail pages and to use
> get_page_foll() within follow_page (inside get_user_pages()). get_page_foll()
> is safe to do the refcounting for tail pages without taking any locks because
> it is run within PT lock protected critical sections (PT lock for pte and
> page_table_lock for pmd_trans_huge). The standard get_page() as invoked by
> direct-io instead will now take the compound_lock but still only for tail
> pages. The direct-io paths are usually I/O bound and the compound_lock is per
> THP so very finegrined, so there's no risk of scalability issues with it. A
> simple direct-io benchmarks with all lockdep prove locking and spinlock
> debugging infrastructure enabled shows identical performance and no overhead.
> So it's worth it. Ideally direct-io should stop calling get_page() on pages
> returned by get_user_pages(). The spinlock in get_page() is already optimized
> away for no-THP builds but doing get_page() on tail pages returned by GUP is
> generally a rare operation and usually only run in I/O paths.
> 
> This new refcounting on page_tail->_mapcount in addition to avoiding new RCU
> critical sections will also allow the working set estimation code to work
> without any further complexity associated to the tail page refcounting
> with THP.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>

Looks great !

I understand you may have to remove the VM_BUG_ON(page_mapcount(page) <= 0)
that I had suggested in __get_page_tail() (sorry about that).

My only additional suggestion is about the put_page_testzero in
__get_page_tail(), maybe if you could just increment the tail page count
instead of calling __get_page_tail_foll(), then you wouldn't have to
release the extra head page count there. And it would even look kinda
natural, head page count gets acquired before compound_lock_irqsave(),
so we only have to acquire an extra tail page count after confirming
this is still a tail page.

Either way, the code looks OK by now.

Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/