Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:27:20 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: Do early cow for pinned pages during fork() for
 ptes
Message-ID: <20200921222720.GA19098@xz-x1>
References: <20200921211744.24758-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20200921212028.25184-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <CAG48ez3frkqQNHbE5bEB6rwYdbyoAA3B9FQZo=HKkUzWCM4H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3frkqQNHbE5bEB6rwYdbyoAA3B9FQZo=HKkUzWCM4H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Jann,

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:55:06PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:20 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> > This patch is greatly inspired by the discussions on the list from Linus, Jason
> > Gunthorpe and others [1].
> >
> > It allows copy_pte_range() to do early cow if the pages were pinned on the
> > source mm.  Currently we don't have an accurate way to know whether a page is
> > pinned or not.  The only thing we have is page_maybe_dma_pinned().  However
> > that's good enough for now.  Especially, with the newly added mm->has_pinned
> > flag to make sure we won't affect processes that never pinned any pages.
> 
> To clarify: This patch only handles pin_user_pages() callers and
> doesn't try to address other GUP users, right? E.g. if task A uses
> process_vm_write() on task B while task B is going through fork(),
> that can still race in such a way that the written data only shows up
> in the child and not in B, right?

I saw that process_vm_write() is using pin_user_pages_remote(), so I think
after this patch applied the data will only be written to B but not the child.
Because when B fork() with these temp pinned pages, it will copy the pages
rather than write-protect them any more.  IIUC the child could still have
partial data, but at last (after unpinned) B should always have the complete
data set.

> 
> I dislike the whole pin_user_pages() concept because (as far as I
> understand) it fundamentally tries to fix a problem in the subset of
> cases that are more likely to occur in practice (long-term pins
> overlapping with things like writeback), and ignores the rarer cases
> ("short-term" GUP).

John/Jason or others may be better on commenting on this one.  From my own
understanding, I thought it was the right thing to do so that we'll always
guarantee process B gets the whole data.  From that pov this patch should make
sense even for short term gups.  But maybe I've missed something.

-- 
Peter Xu