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: <20230609005158.2421285-1-surenb@google.com> <20230609005158.2421285-5-surenb@google.com>
 <ZIOOmC26qh4EXUEX@x1n>
In-Reply-To: <ZIOOmC26qh4EXUEX@x1n>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 15:30:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHKUjAwgWbxvJQDyEnneRD03p2M6247Q6=3-oOq_FL7zA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] mm: drop VMA lock before waiting for migration
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        mhocko@suse.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, jack@suse.cz,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        michel@lespinasse.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, jglisse@google.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, minchan@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, hdanton@sina.com,
        apopple@nvidia.com, ying.huang@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:42=E2=80=AFPM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > migration_entry_wait does not need VMA lock, therefore it can be droppe=
d
> > before waiting. Introduce VM_FAULT_VMA_UNLOCKED to indicate that VMA
> > lock was dropped while in handle_mm_fault().
> > Note that once VMA lock is dropped, the VMA reference can't be used as
> > there are no guarantees it was not freed.
>
> Then vma lock behaves differently from mmap read lock, am I right?  Can w=
e
> still make them match on behaviors, or there's reason not to do so?

I think we could match their behavior by also dropping mmap_lock here
when fault is handled under mmap_lock (!(fault->flags &
FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)).
I missed the fact that VM_FAULT_COMPLETED can be used to skip dropping
mmap_lock in do_page_fault(), so indeed, I might be able to use
VM_FAULT_COMPLETED to skip vma_end_read(vma) for per-vma locks as well
instead of introducing FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK. I think that was your idea
of reusing existing flags?

>
> One reason is if they match they can reuse existing flags and there'll be
> less confusing, e.g. this:
>
>   (fault->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK) &&
>     (vm_fault_ret && (VM_FAULT_RETRY || VM_FAULT_COMPLETE))
>
> can replace the new flag, iiuc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>