Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:36:50 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave.bueso@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace mmap_sem for mm->exe_file serialization
Message-ID: <20150227173650.GA18823@redhat.com>
References: <1424979417.10344.14.camel@stgolabs.net> <20150226205145.GH3041@moon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150226205145.GH3041@moon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1800
Lines: 44

On 02/26, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:36:57AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > We currently use the mmap_sem to serialize the mm exe_file.
> > This is atrocious and a clear example of the misuses this
> > lock has all over the place, making any significant changes
> > to the address space locking that much more complex and tedious.
> > This also has to do of how we used to check for the vma's vm_file
> > being VM_EXECUTABLE (much of which was replaced by 2dd8ad81e31).
> >
> > This patch, therefore, removes the mmap_sem dependency and
> > introduces a specific lock for the exe_file (rwlock_t, as it is
> > read mostly and protects a trivial critical region). As mentioned,
> > the motivation is to cleanup mmap_sem (as opposed to exe_file
> > performance).

Well, I didn't see the patch, can't really comment.

But I have to admit that this looks as atrocious and a clear example of
"lets add yet another random lock which we will regret about later" ;)

rwlock_t in mm_struct just to serialize access to exe_file?

> A nice side effect of this is that we avoid taking
> > the mmap_sem (shared) in fork paths for the exe_file handling
> > (note that readers block when the rwsem is taken exclusively by
> > another thread).

Yes, this is ugly. Can't we kill this dup_mm_exe_file() and copy change
dup_mmap() to also dup ->exe_file ?

> Hi Davidlohr, it would be interesting to know if the cleanup
> bring some performance benefit?

To me the main question is whether the patch makes this code simpler
or uglier ;)

Oleg.

--
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/