Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220901173516.702122-1-surenb@google.com> <20220901173516.702122-10-surenb@google.com>
 <98d5f462-c4dc-a967-0ab0-f24dd3e37dff@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <98d5f462-c4dc-a967-0ab0-f24dd3e37dff@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 17:27:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFoJmiGYXBLwOjW36iB302=V2_vvbRwQbftr_ix_92uuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RESEND 09/28] mm/mempolicy: mark VMA as locked when
 changing protection policy
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org,
        jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net,
        willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
        songliubraving@fb.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        kent.overstreet@linux.dev, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        kernel-team@android.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 7:48 AM Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> wrote=
:
>
> Le 01/09/2022 =C3=A0 19:34, Suren Baghdasaryan a =C3=A9crit :
> > Protect VMA from concurrent page fault handler while performing VMA
> > protection policy changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/mempolicy.c | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index b73d3248d976..6be1e5c75556 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -383,8 +383,10 @@ void mpol_rebind_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, nodemask=
_t *new)
> >       struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >
> >       mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > -     for (vma =3D mm->mmap; vma; vma =3D vma->vm_next)
> > +     for (vma =3D mm->mmap; vma; vma =3D vma->vm_next) {
> > +             vma_mark_locked(vma);
> >               mpol_rebind_policy(vma->vm_policy, new);
> > +     }
> >       mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -632,6 +634,7 @@ unsigned long change_prot_numa(struct vm_area_struc=
t *vma,
> >       struct mmu_gather tlb;
> >       int nr_updated;
> >
> > +     vma_mark_locked(vma);
>
> If I understand that corretly, the VMA itself is not impacted, only the
> PMDs/PTEs, and they are protected using the page table locks.
>
> Am I missing something?

I thought we would not want pages faulting in the VMA for which we are
changing the protection. However I think what you are saying is that
page table locks would already provide a more granular synchronization
with page fault handlers, which makes sense to me. Sounds like we can
skip locking the VMA here as well. Nice!

>
> >       tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, vma->vm_mm);
> >
> >       nr_updated =3D change_protection(&tlb, vma, addr, end, PAGE_NONE,
> > @@ -765,6 +768,7 @@ static int vma_replace_policy(struct vm_area_struct=
 *vma,
> >       if (IS_ERR(new))
> >               return PTR_ERR(new);
> >
> > +     vma_mark_locked(vma);
> >       if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->set_policy) {
> >               err =3D vma->vm_ops->set_policy(vma, new);
> >               if (err)
>