Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/20] mm: VMA sequence count
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com,
        mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        x86@kernel.org
References: <1504894024-2750-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1504894024-2750-5-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170913115354.GA7756@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <44849c10-bc67-b55e-5788-d3c6bb5e7ad1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170914003116.GA599@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <441ff1c6-72a7-5d96-02c8-063578affb62@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170914081358.GG599@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:58:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170914081358.GG599@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <26fa0b71-4053-5af7-baa0-e5fff9babf41@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1387
Lines: 47

On 14/09/2017 10:13, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On (09/14/17 09:55), Laurent Dufour wrote:
> [..]
>>> so if there are two CPUs, one doing write_seqcount() and the other one
>>> doing read_seqcount() then what can happen is something like this
>>>
>>> 	CPU0					CPU1
>>>
>>> 						fs_reclaim_acquire()
>>> 	write_seqcount_begin()
>>> 	fs_reclaim_acquire()			read_seqcount_begin()
>>> 	write_seqcount_end()
>>>
>>> CPU0 can't write_seqcount_end() because of fs_reclaim_acquire() from
>>> CPU1, CPU1 can't read_seqcount_begin() because CPU0 did write_seqcount_begin()
>>> and now waits for fs_reclaim_acquire(). makes sense?
>>
>> Yes, this makes sense.
>>
>> But in the case of this series, there is no call to
>> __read_seqcount_begin(), and the reader (the speculative page fault
>> handler), is just checking for (vm_seq & 1) and if this is true, simply
>> exit the speculative path without waiting.
>> So there is no deadlock possibility.
> 
> probably lockdep just knows that those locks interleave at some
> point.
> 
> 
> by the way, I think there is one path that can spin
> 
> find_vma_srcu()
>  read_seqbegin()
>   read_seqcount_begin()
>    raw_read_seqcount_begin()
>     __read_seqcount_begin()


That's right, but here this is the  sequence counter mm->mm_seq, not the
vm_seq one.

This one is held to protect walking the VMA list "locklessly"...

Cheers,
Laurent.