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;
Message-ID: <afce1bdf-6b5f-3393-cafa-81148277773d@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 11:24:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm/hugetlb: Document huge_pte_offset usage
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
References: <20221129193526.3588187-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20221129193526.3588187-4-peterx@redhat.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20221129193526.3588187-4-peterx@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29.11.22 20:35, Peter Xu wrote:
> huge_pte_offset() is potentially a pgtable walker, looking up pte_t* for a
> hugetlb address.
> 
> Normally, it's always safe to walk a generic pgtable as long as we're with
> the mmap lock held for either read or write, because that guarantees the
> pgtable pages will always be valid during the process.
> 
> But it's not true for hugetlbfs, especially shared: hugetlbfs can have its
> pgtable freed by pmd unsharing, it means that even with mmap lock held for
> current mm, the PMD pgtable page can still go away from under us if pmd
> unsharing is possible during the walk.
> 
> So we have two ways to make it safe even for a shared mapping:
> 
>    (1) If we're with the hugetlb vma lock held for either read/write, it's
>        okay because pmd unshare cannot happen at all.
> 
>    (2) If we're with the i_mmap_rwsem lock held for either read/write, it's
>        okay because even if pmd unshare can happen, the pgtable page cannot
>        be freed from under us.
> 
> Document it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/hugetlb.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index 551834cd5299..81efd9b9baa2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -192,6 +192,38 @@ extern struct list_head huge_boot_pages;
>   
>   pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   			unsigned long addr, unsigned long sz);
> +/*
> + * huge_pte_offset(): Walk the hugetlb pgtable until the last level PTE.
> + * Returns the pte_t* if found, or NULL if the address is not mapped.
> + *
> + * Since this function will walk all the pgtable pages (including not only
> + * high-level pgtable page, but also PUD entry that can be unshared
> + * concurrently for VM_SHARED), the caller of this function should be
> + * responsible of its thread safety.  One can follow this rule:
> + *
> + *  (1) For private mappings: pmd unsharing is not possible, so it'll
> + *      always be safe if we're with the mmap sem for either read or write.
> + *      This is normally always the case, IOW we don't need to do anything
> + *      special.

Maybe worth mentioning that hugetlb_vma_lock_read() and friends already 
optimize for private mappings, to not take the VMA lock if not required.

Was happy to spot that optimization in there already :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb