Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] proc/task_mmu: read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock
From: Liam R. Howlett
Date: Tue Sep 08 2026 - 14:31:26 EST
On 26/09/06 11:39PM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> proc/pid/smaps_rollup can be read using the combination of RCU and
> VMA read locks, similar to proc/pid/{maps|smaps|numa_maps}. RCU is
> required to safely traverse the VMA tree and VMA lock stabilizes the
> VMA being processed and the pagetable walk.
> Note that we have to keep the logic to drop mmap_lock on contention
> because even when using per-VMA locks we might have to fall back to
> holding the mmap_lock.
>
> Running Paul's contention benchmark [1] shows considerable improvement
> both in median and in the worst case latencies:
>
> Execution command: run-proc-vs-map.sh --nsamples 20 --rawdata -- \
> --busyduration 2 --procfile smaps_rollup
>
> Baseline:
> Median Minimum Maximum
> 0.174 0.161 2.553
> 0.174 0.164 2.663
> 0.174 0.165 2.664
> 0.174 0.166 2.679
> 0.174 0.167 2.691
> 0.174 0.168 2.704
> 0.174 0.169 2.729
> 0.174 0.172 2.741
> 0.174 0.174 2.745
> 0.174 0.174 2.755
> 0.174 0.175 2.790
> 0.174 0.177 2.809
> 0.174 0.179 3.096
> 0.174 0.183 3.144
> 0.174 0.184 3.158
> 0.174 0.185 3.175
> 0.174 0.185 4.568
> 0.174 0.198 4.821
> 0.174 0.214 5.143
> 0.174 0.251 5.220
>
> Patched:
> Median Minimum Maximum
> 0.007 0.007 1.952
> 0.007 0.007 1.955
> 0.007 0.007 1.955
> 0.007 0.007 1.955
> 0.007 0.007 1.957
> 0.007 0.007 1.969
> 0.007 0.007 2.065
> 0.007 0.007 2.075
> 0.007 0.007 2.146
> 0.007 0.007 2.195
> 0.007 0.007 2.223
> 0.007 0.007 2.259
> 0.007 0.007 2.488
> 0.007 0.007 2.562
> 0.007 0.007 2.599
> 0.007 0.007 2.697
> 0.007 0.007 3.030
> 0.007 0.007 3.075
> 0.007 0.007 3.145
> 0.007 0.007 3.225
>
> Remove now unused lock_ctx_mm() and move unlock_ctx_vma() next to
> unlock_ctx_mm() as they are logically related.
>
> Remove a long comment about 4 cases that we handle when dropping the
> mmap lock in the middle of VMA walk due to contention. The first 3
> cases explained there are handled naturally and only case 4 needs to
> be handled in a special way, which is done in smap_gather_stats() by
> gathering stats from the portion of the VMA that has not yet been
> processed.
> For posterity, moving this comment here:
>
> After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
> consider. See the following example for explanation.
>
> +------+------+-----------+
> | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3 |
> +------+------+-----------+
> | | | |
> 4k 8k 16k 400k
>
> Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
> contention, then we get:
>
> last_vma_end = 16k
>
> 1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:
>
> vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> In this case, just continue from VMA3.
>
> 2) VMA2 still exists:
>
> vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> In this case, just continue from VMA3.
>
> 3) No more VMAs can be found:
>
> vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
> No more things to do, just break.
>
> 4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):
>
> vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
> contains last_vma_end.
> Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.
>
> [1] https://github.com/paulmckrcu/proc-mmap_sem-test
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 153 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 3351decd1172..641a155b0c61 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -130,28 +130,12 @@ static void release_task_mempolicy(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> -{
> - int ret = mmap_read_lock_killable(lock_ctx->mm);
> -
> - if (!ret)
> - lock_ctx->mmap_locked = true;
> -
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> static void unlock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> {
> mmap_read_unlock(lock_ctx->mm);
> lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
> }
>
> -static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> -{
> - lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
> - lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
> -}
> -
> static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> {
> if (lock_ctx->locked_vma) {
> @@ -160,6 +144,12 @@ static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> }
> }
>
> +static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> +{
> + lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
> + lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
> +}
> +
> static struct vm_area_struct *get_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> loff_t last_pos)
> {
> @@ -1376,12 +1366,14 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> {
> struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> + struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx = &priv->lock_ctx;
> + struct mm_struct *mm = lock_ctx->mm;
> struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> - struct mm_struct *mm = priv->lock_ctx.mm;
> + unsigned long last_vma_end = 0;
> + unsigned long vma_start = 0;
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> - unsigned long vma_start = 0, last_vma_end = 0;
> + loff_t pos = 0;
> int ret = 0;
> - VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
>
> priv->task = get_proc_task(priv->inode);
> if (!priv->task)
> @@ -1392,89 +1384,60 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> goto out_put_task;
> }
>
> - ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out_put_mm;
> -
> hold_task_mempolicy(priv);
> - vma = vma_next(&vmi);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
>
> + vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, 0);
> + vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
> if (unlikely(!vma))
> goto empty_set;
>
> - vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> - do {
> - smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> - last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> + if (!IS_ERR(vma) && vma != get_gate_vma(lock_ctx->mm))
> + vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> +
> + while (vma) {
> + if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(vma);
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + if (vma == get_gate_vma(lock_ctx->mm))
> + break;
>
> /*
> - * Release mmap_lock temporarily if someone wants to
> - * access it for write request.
> + * If after retaking the lock, already reported VMA grew or
> + * merged with the next one, smap_gather_stats() will gather
> + * stats for the remaining portion by starting at last_vma_end.
> */
> - if (mmap_lock_is_contended(mm)) {
> - vma_iter_invalidate(&vmi);
> - unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> - ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> - if (ret) {
> - release_task_mempolicy(priv);
> - goto out_put_mm;
> - }
> + smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> + last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
>
> + /*
> + * If the VMA lock is not taken, we hold the often contended
> + * mmap lock. This can happen if we had to fall back to the
> + * mmap lock.
> + *
> + * To relieve pressure, check if it is indeed contended, then
> + * temporarily release it.
> + */
> + if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked &&
> + mmap_lock_is_contended(lock_ctx->mm)) {
> + unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
> /*
> - * After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
> - * consider. See the following example for explanation.
> - *
> - * +------+------+-----------+
> - * | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3 |
> - * +------+------+-----------+
> - * | | | |
> - * 4k 8k 16k 400k
> - *
> - * Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
> - * contention, then we get:
> - *
> - * last_vma_end = 16k
> - *
> - * 1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:
> - *
> - * vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> - * In this case, just continue from VMA3.
> - *
> - * 2) VMA2 still exists:
> - *
> - * vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> - * In this case, just continue from VMA3.
> - *
> - * 3) No more VMAs can be found:
> - *
> - * vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
> - * No more things to do, just break.
> - *
> - * 4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):
> - *
> - * vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
> - * contains last_vma_end.
> - * Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.
> + * Even though we previously fell back to mmap lock,
> + * we try taking VMA lock for the next VMA, since it
> + * might not be under modification. In the worst case
> + * we will fall back to mmap lock again.
> */
> - vma = vma_next(&vmi);
> - /* Case 3 above */
> - if (!vma)
> - break;
> -
> - /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> - if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> - smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> - last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> - continue;
> - }
> -
> - /* Case 4 above */
> - if (vma->vm_end > last_vma_end) {
> - smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> - last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> - }
Thanks for this :)
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
> + /* Resume from the last position. */
> + pos = last_vma_end;
> + vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, pos);
> }
> - } for_each_vma(vmi, vma);
> + vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
> + }
>
> empty_set:
> show_vma_header_prefix(m, vma_start, last_vma_end, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> @@ -1483,10 +1446,14 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>
> __show_smap(m, &mss, true);
>
> +out_unlock:
> + if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked) {
> + unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
> + } else {
> + unlock_ctx_vma(lock_ctx);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> release_task_mempolicy(priv);
> - unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> -
> -out_put_mm:
> mmput(mm);
> out_put_task:
> put_task_struct(priv->task);
> --
> 2.55.0.979.g7e5102b832-goog
>