Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:27 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:21:28AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > static inline bool vma_read_trylock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> >        int count, new;
> >
> >         /* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result. */
> >        if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock->lock_seq) ==
> >            READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
> >                 return false;
> >
> >         count = atomic_read(&vma->vm_lock->count);
> >         for (;;) {
> >               /*
> >                * Is VMA is write-locked? Overflow might produce false
> > locked result.
> >                * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
> >                * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and
> > mm->mm_lock_seq
> >                * modification invalidates all existing locks.
> >                */
> >               if (count < 0)
> >                         return false;
> >
> >              new = count + 1;
> >              /* If atomic_t overflows, fail to lock. */
> >              if (new < 0)
> >                         return false;
> >
> >              /*
> >               * Atomic RMW will provide implicit mb on success to pair
> > with smp_wmb in
> >               * vma_write_lock, on failure we retry.
> >               */
> >               new = atomic_cmpxchg(&vma->vm_lock->count, count, new);
> >                 if (new == count)
> >                         break;
> >                 count = new;
> >                 cpu_relax();
>
> The cpu_relax() is exactly the wrong thing to do here.  See this thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230113184447.1707316-1-mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx/

Thanks for the pointer, Matthew. I think we can safely remove
cpu_relax() since it's unlikely the count is constantly changing under
a reader.

>