Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-204738-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240605002459.4091285-1-andrii@kernel.org> <20240605002459.4091285-2-andrii@kernel.org>
 <Zl-38XrUw9entlFR@casper.infradead.org> <uevtozlryyqw5vj2duuzowupknfynmreruiw6m7bcxryjppqpm@7g766emooxfh>
 <CAEf4BzZFpidjJzRMWboZYY03U8M22Yo1sqXconi36V11XA-ZfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf4BzYDhtkYt=qn2YgrnRkZ0tpa3EPAiCUcBkdUa-9DKN22dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf4Bzbzj55LfgTom9KiM1Xe8pfXvpWBd6ETjXQCh7M===G5aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5fmylram4hhrrdl7vf6odyvuxcrvhipsx2ij5z4dsfciuzf4on@qwk7qzze6gbt> <CAJuCfpER9qUSGbWBcHhT1=ssH41Xv8--XVA5BEPCM7uf=z_GLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpER9qUSGbWBcHhT1=ssH41Xv8--XVA5BEPCM7uf=z_GLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzax2E1JS=MUm=sBJvcMb+CyWaPdxmr2mDuODs2cc3_mTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] mm: add find_vma()-like API but RCU protected and
 taking VMA lock
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, 
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, rppt@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFPM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:03=E2=80=AFAM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@ora=
cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> [240605 12:27]:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:24=E2=80=AFAM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:13=E2=80=AFAM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:33=E2=80=AFAM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howl=
ett@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> [240604 20:57]:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:24:46PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wro=
te:
> > > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > > + * find_and_lock_vma_rcu() - Find and lock the VMA for a g=
iven address, or the
> > > > > > > > + * next VMA. Search is done under RCU protection, without =
taking or assuming
> > > > > > > > + * mmap_lock. Returned VMA is guaranteed to be stable and =
not isolated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You know this is supposed to be the _short_ description, righ=
t?
> > > > > > > Three lines is way too long.  The full description goes betwe=
en the
> > > > > > > arguments and the Return: line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I'll adjust.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + * @mm: The mm_struct to check
> > > > > > > > + * @addr: The address
> > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > + * Returns: The VMA associated with addr, or the next VMA.
> > > > > > > > + * May return %NULL in the case of no VMA at addr or above=
.
> > > > > > > > + * If the VMA is being modified and can't be locked, -EBUS=
Y is returned.
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > +struct vm_area_struct *find_and_lock_vma_rcu(struct mm_str=
uct *mm,
> > > > > > > > +                                        unsigned long addr=
ess)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > +   MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, address, address);
> > > > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > > > +   int err;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > +retry:
> > > > > > > > +   vma =3D mas_find(&mas, ULONG_MAX);
> > > > > > > > +   if (!vma) {
> > > > > > > > +           err =3D 0; /* no VMA, return NULL */
> > > > > > > > +           goto inval;
> > > > > > > > +   }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   if (!vma_start_read(vma)) {
> > > > > > > > +           err =3D -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > +           goto inval;
> > > > > > > > +   }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   /*
> > > > > > > > +    * Check since vm_start/vm_end might change before we l=
ock the VMA.
> > > > > > > > +    * Note, unlike lock_vma_under_rcu() we are searching f=
or VMA covering
> > > > > > > > +    * address or the next one, so we only make sure VMA wa=
sn't updated to
> > > > > > > > +    * end before the address.
> > > > > > > > +    */
> > > > > > > > +   if (unlikely(vma->vm_end <=3D address)) {
> > > > > > > > +           err =3D -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > +           goto inval_end_read;
> > > > > > > > +   }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   /* Check if the VMA got isolated after we found it */
> > > > > > > > +   if (vma->detached) {
> > > > > > > > +           vma_end_read(vma);
> > > > > > > > +           count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_MISS);
> > > > > > > > +           /* The area was replaced with another one */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Surely you need to mas_reset() before you goto retry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably more than that.  We've found and may have adjusted the
> > > > > > index/last; we should reconfigure the maple state.  You should =
probably
> > > > > > use mas_set(), which will reset the maple state and set the ind=
ex and
> > > > > > long to address.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, makes sense, thanks. As for the `unlikely(vma->vm_end <=3D
> > > > > address)` case, I presume we want to do the same, right? Basicall=
y, on
> > > > > each retry start from the `address` unconditionally, no matter wh=
at's
> > > > > the reason for retry.
> > > >
> > > > ah, never mind, we don't retry in that situation, I'll just put
> > > > `mas_set(&mas, address);` right before `goto retry;`. Unless we sho=
uld
> > > > actually retry in the case when VMA got moved before the requested
> > > > address, not sure, let me know what you think. Presumably retrying
> > > > will allow us to get the correct VMA without the need to fall back =
to
> > > > mmap_lock?
> > >
> > > sorry, one more question as I look some more around this (unfamiliar
> > > to me) piece of code. I see that lock_vma_under_rcu counts
> > > VMA_LOCK_MISS on retry, but I see that there is actually a
> > > VMA_LOCK_RETRY stat as well. Any reason it's a MISS instead of RETRY?
> > > Should I use MISS as well, or actually count a RETRY?
> > >
> >
> > VMA_LOCK_MISS is used here because we missed the VMA due to a write
> > happening to move the vma (rather rare).  The VMA_LOCK missed the vma.
> >
> > VMA_LOCK_RETRY is used to indicate we need to retry under the mmap lock=
.
> > A retry is needed after the VMA_LOCK did not work under rcu locking.
>
> Originally lock_vma_under_rcu() was used only inside page fault path,
> so these counters helped us quantify how effective VMA locking is when
> handling page faults. With more users of that function these counters
> will be affected by other paths as well. I'm not sure but I think it
> makes sense to use them only inside page fault path, IOW we should
> probably move count_vm_vma_lock_event() calls outside of
> lock_vma_under_rcu() and add them only when handling page faults.

Alright, seems like I should then just drop count_vm_vma_lock_event()
from the API I'm adding.

>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Liam