Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,migration: Fix race between shift_arg_pages andrmap_walk by guaranteeing rmap_walk finds PTEs created within the temporarystack

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Sun, 9 May 2010 12:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 9 May 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 
> > It turns out not to be easy to the preallocating of PUDs, PMDs and PTEs
> > move_page_tables() needs.  To avoid overallocating, it has to follow the same
> > logic as move_page_tables duplicating some code in the process. The ugliest
> > aspect of all is passing those pre-allocated pages back into move_page_tables
> > where they need to be passed down to such functions as __pte_alloc. It turns
> > extremely messy.
> 
> Umm. What?
> 
> That's crazy talk. I'm not talking about preallocating stuff in order to 
> pass it in to move_page_tables(). I'm talking about just _creating_ the 
> dang page tables early - preallocating them IN THE PROCESS VM SPACE.
> 
> IOW, a patch like this (this is a pseudo-patch, totally untested, won't 
> compile, yadda yadda - you need to actually make the people who call 
> "move_page_tables()" call that prepare function first etc etc)
> 
> Yeah, if we care about holes in the page tables, we can certainly copy 
> more of the move_page_tables() logic, but it certainly doesn't matter for 
> execve(). This just makes sure that the destination page tables exist 
> first.
> 
IMHO, I think move_page_tables() itself should be implemented as your patch.

But, move_page_tables()'s failure is not a big problem. At failure,
exec will abort and no page fault will occur later. What we have to do in
this migration-patch-series is avoding inconsistent update of sets of
[page, vma->vm_start, vma->pg_off, ptes] or "dont' migrate pages in exec's
statk".

Considering cost, as Mel shows, "don't migrate apges in exec's stack" seems
reasonable. But, I still doubt this check.

+static bool is_vma_temporary_stack(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+	int maybe_stack = vma->vm_flags & (VM_GROWSDOWN | VM_GROWSUP);
+
+	if (!maybe_stack)
+		return false;
+
+	/* If only the stack is mapped, assume exec is in progress */
+	if (vma->vm_mm->map_count == 1) -------------------(*)
+		return true; 
+
+	return false;
+}
+
\
Mel, can (*) be safe even on a.out format (format other than ELFs) ?

Thanks,
-Kame







> 		Linus
> 
> ---
>  mm/mremap.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> index cde56ee..c14505c 100644
> --- a/mm/mremap.c
> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,26 @@ static void move_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *old_pmd,
>  
>  #define LATENCY_LIMIT	(64 * PAGE_SIZE)
>  
> +/*
> + * Preallocate the page tables, so that we can do the actual move
> + * without any allocations, and thus no error handling etc.
> + */
> +int prepare_move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> +	unsigned long old_addr, struct vm_area_struct *new_vma,
> +	unsigned long new_addr, unsigned long len)
> +{
> +	unsigned long end_addr = new_addr + len;
> +
> +	while (new_addr < end_addr) {
> +		pmd_t *new_pmd;
> +		new_pmd = alloc_new_pmd(vma->vm_mm, new_addr);
> +		if (!new_pmd)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		new_addr = (new_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		unsigned long old_addr, struct vm_area_struct *new_vma,
>  		unsigned long new_addr, unsigned long len)
> @@ -147,7 +167,7 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		old_pmd = get_old_pmd(vma->vm_mm, old_addr);
>  		if (!old_pmd)
>  			continue;
> -		new_pmd = alloc_new_pmd(vma->vm_mm, new_addr);
> +		new_pmd = get_old_pmd(vma->vm_mm, new_addr);
>  		if (!new_pmd)
>  			break;
>  		next = (new_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> 

--
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/