Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1521581486-99134-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1521581486-99134-2-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180321130833.GM23100@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <f88deb20-bcce-939f-53a6-1061c39a9f6c@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180321172932.GE4780@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <f057a634-7e0a-1b51-eede-dcb6f128b18e@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180321224631.GB3969@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:32:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180321224631.GB3969@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <18a727fd-f006-9fae-d9ca-74b9004f0a8b@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 21/03/2018 23:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:45:44PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Marking vma as deleted sounds good. The problem for my current approach is
>> the concurrent page fault may succeed if it access the not yet unmapped
>> section. Marking deleted vma could tell page fault the vma is not valid
>> anymore, then return SIGSEGV.
>>
>>> does not care; munmap will need to wait for the existing munmap operation
>>
>> Why mmap doesn't care? How about MAP_FIXED? It may fail unexpectedly, right?
> 
> The other thing about MAP_FIXED that we'll need to handle is unmapping
> conflicts atomically.  Say a program has a 200GB mapping and then
> mmap(MAP_FIXED) another 200GB region on top of it.  So I think page faults
> are also going to have to wait for deleted vmas (then retry the fault)
> rather than immediately raising SIGSEGV.

Regarding the page fault, why not relying on the PTE locking ?

When munmap() will unset the PTE it will have to held the PTE lock, so this
will serialize the access.
If the page fault occurs before the mmap(MAP_FIXED), the page mapped will be
removed when mmap(MAP_FIXED) would do the cleanup. Fair enough.