Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] mm/hugetlb: Make walk_hugetlb_range() safe to pmd unshare

[Peter Xu]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 02:14:42PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.12.22 21:30, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Since walk_hugetlb_range() walks the pgtable, it needs the vma lock
> > to make sure the pgtable page will not be freed concurrently.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/s390/mm/gmap.c      |  2 ++
> >   fs/proc/task_mmu.c       |  2 ++
> >   include/linux/pagewalk.h | 11 ++++++++++-
> >   mm/hmm.c                 | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >   mm/pagewalk.c            |  2 ++
> >   5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> > index 8947451ae021..292a54c490d4 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> > @@ -2643,7 +2643,9 @@ static int __s390_enable_skey_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr,
> >   	end = start + HPAGE_SIZE - 1;
> >   	__storage_key_init_range(start, end);
> >   	set_bit(PG_arch_1, &page->flags);
> > +	hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(walk->vma);
> >   	cond_resched();
> > +	hugetlb_vma_lock_read(walk->vma);
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index e35a0398db63..cf3887fb2905 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -1613,7 +1613,9 @@ static int pagemap_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask,
> >   			frame++;
> >   	}
> > +	hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(walk->vma);
> >   	cond_resched();
> > +	hugetlb_vma_lock_read(walk->vma);
> 
> We already hold the mmap_lock and reschedule. Even without the
> cond_resched() we might happily reschedule on a preemptive kernel. So I'm
> not sure if this optimization is strictly required or even helpful in
> practice here.

It's just low hanging fruit if we need that complexity anyway.

That's also why I didn't do that for v1 (where I missed hmm special case,
though..), but I think since we'll need that anyway, we'd better release
the vma lock if we can easily do so.

mmap_lock is just more special because it needs more work in the caller to
release (e.g. vma invalidations).  Otherwise I'm happy dropping that too.

> 
> In the worst case, concurrent unsharing would have to wait.
> For example, s390_enable_skey() is called at most once for a VM, for most
> VMs it gets never even called.
> 
> Or am I missing something important?

Nothing important.  I just don't see why we need to strictly follow the
same release rule of mmap_lock here when talking about vma lock.

In short - if we can drop a lock earlier before sleep, why not?

I tend to just keep it as-is, but let me know if you have further thoughts
or concerns.

-- 
Peter Xu