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;
Date:   Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.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>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 17/24] mm: Protect mm_rb tree with a rwlock
In-Reply-To: <1520963994-28477-18-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804021711090.34466@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1520963994-28477-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1520963994-28477-18-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:

> This change is inspired by the Peter's proposal patch [1] which was
> protecting the VMA using SRCU. Unfortunately, SRCU is not scaling well in
> that particular case, and it is introducing major performance degradation
> due to excessive scheduling operations.
> 
> To allow access to the mm_rb tree without grabbing the mmap_sem, this patch
> is protecting it access using a rwlock.  As the mm_rb tree is a O(log n)
> search it is safe to protect it using such a lock.  The VMA cache is not
> protected by the new rwlock and it should not be used without holding the
> mmap_sem.
> 
> To allow the picked VMA structure to be used once the rwlock is released, a
> use count is added to the VMA structure. When the VMA is allocated it is
> set to 1.  Each time the VMA is picked with the rwlock held its use count
> is incremented. Each time the VMA is released it is decremented. When the
> use count hits zero, this means that the VMA is no more used and should be
> freed.
> 
> This patch is preparing for 2 kind of VMA access :
>  - as usual, under the control of the mmap_sem,
>  - without holding the mmap_sem for the speculative page fault handler.
> 
> Access done under the control the mmap_sem doesn't require to grab the
> rwlock to protect read access to the mm_rb tree, but access in write must
> be done under the protection of the rwlock too. This affects inserting and
> removing of elements in the RB tree.
> 
> The patch is introducing 2 new functions:
>  - vma_get() to find a VMA based on an address by holding the new rwlock.
>  - vma_put() to release the VMA when its no more used.
> These services are designed to be used when access are made to the RB tree
> without holding the mmap_sem.
> 
> When a VMA is removed from the RB tree, its vma->vm_rb field is cleared and
> we rely on the WMB done when releasing the rwlock to serialize the write
> with the RMB done in a later patch to check for the VMA's validity.
> 
> When free_vma is called, the file associated with the VMA is closed
> immediately, but the policy and the file structure remained in used until
> the VMA's use count reach 0, which may happens later when exiting an
> in progress speculative page fault.
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5108281/
> 
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Can __free_vma() be generalized for mm/nommu.c's delete_vma() and 
do_mmap()?