Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751458Ab3GPFeY (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:34:24 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo02.lge.com ([156.147.1.126]:60458 "EHLO LGEAMRELO02.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751336Ab3GPFeX (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:34:23 -0400 X-AuditID: 9c93017e-b7b62ae000000eeb-76-51e4db5d8f97 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:34:24 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim To: Rik van Riel Cc: David Gibson , Davidlohr Bueso , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Michel Lespinasse , Mel Gorman , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Michal Hocko , "AneeshKumarK.V" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Hillf Danton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: per-vma instantiation mutexes Message-ID: <20130716053424.GB30116@lge.com> References: <1373671681.2448.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <1373858204.13826.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20130715072432.GA28053@voom.fritz.box> <51E4A719.4020703@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51E4A719.4020703@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2422 Lines: 61 On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote: > >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > >>>Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me. > >>>A per-vma mutex is just not going to provide the necessary exclusion, is > >>>it? (But I recall next to nothing about these regions and > >>>reservations.) > > > >A per-VMA lock is definitely wrong. I think it handles one form of > >the race, between threads sharing a VM on a MAP_PRIVATE mapping. > >However another form of the race can and does occur between different > >MAP_SHARED VMAs in the same or different processes. I think there may > >be edge cases involving mremap() and MAP_PRIVATE that will also be > >missed by a per-VMA lock. > > > >Note that the libhugetlbfs testsuite contains tests for both PRIVATE > >and SHARED variants of the race. > > Can we get away with simply using a mutex in the file? > Say vma->vm_file->mapping->i_mmap_mutex? I totally agree with this approach :) > > That might help with multiple processes initializing > multiple shared memory segments at the same time, and > should not hurt the case of a process mapping its own > hugetlbfs area. > > It might have the potential to hurt when getting private > copies on a MAP_PRIVATE area, though. I have no idea > how common it is for multiple processes to MAP_PRIVATE > the same hugetlbfs file, though... Currently, getting private copies on a MAP_PRIVATE area is also serialized by hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. How do we get worse with your approach? BTW, we have one race problem related to hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. It is not right protection for region structure handling. We map the area without holding a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, so there is race condition between mapping a new area and faulting the other area. Am I missing? Thanks. > > -- > All rights reversed > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: email@kvack.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/