[v6,03/24] mm: Dont assume page-table invariance during faults

Message ID 1515777968-867-4-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • Speculative page faults
Related show

Commit Message

Laurent Dufour Jan. 12, 2018, 5:25 p.m.
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.

Remove the reliance on the pte pointer.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

[Remove only if !CONFIG_SPF]
Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 mm/memory.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Comments

Andi Kleen Jan. 17, 2018, 3:04 a.m. | #1
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>
> Remove the reliance on the pte pointer.

This needs a lot more explanation. So why is this code not needed with
SPF only?

-Andi
Laurent Dufour Jan. 17, 2018, 8:57 a.m. | #2
On 17/01/2018 04:04, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>
>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>>
>> Remove the reliance on the pte pointer.
> 
> This needs a lot more explanation. So why is this code not needed with
> SPF only?

Hi Andi,

This is a good question, and I should detail that more in the commit's log.

Here is my response to Balbir when he asked for:

On 10/07/2017 19:48, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 09:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 19:52 +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>>
>>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>>> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>>>
>>> Remove the relyance on the pte pointer.
>>              ^^ reliance
>>
>> Looking at the changelog and the code the impact is not clear.
>> It looks like after this patch we always assume the pte is not
>> the same. What is the impact of this patch?
> 
> Hi Balbir,
> 
> In most of the case pte_unmap_same() was returning 1, which meaning that
> do_swap_page() should do its processing.
> 
> So in most of the case there will be no impact.
> 
> Now regarding the case where pte_unmap_safe() was returning 0, and thus
> do_swap_page return 0 too, this happens when the page has already been
> swapped back. This may happen before do_swap_page() get called or while in
> the call to do_swap_page(). In that later case, the check done when
> swapin_readahead() returns will detect that case.
> 
> The worst case would be that a page fault is occuring on 2 threads at the
> same time on the same swapped out page. In that case one thread will take
> much time looping in __read_swap_cache_async(). But in the regular page
> fault path, this is even worse since the thread would wait for semaphore to
> be released before starting anything.
> 
> Cheers,
> Laurent.
> 

I'll add that to the commit's log.

Thanks,
Laurent.

Patch

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 8a80986fff48..259f621345b2 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -2274,6 +2274,7 @@  int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_SPF
 /*
  * handle_pte_fault chooses page fault handler according to an entry which was
  * read non-atomically.  Before making any commitment, on those architectures
@@ -2297,6 +2298,7 @@  static inline int pte_unmap_same(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
 	pte_unmap(page_table);
 	return same;
 }
+#endif /* CONFIG_SPF */
 
 static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src, unsigned long va, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 {
@@ -2884,11 +2886,13 @@  int do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 		swapcache = page;
 	}
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_SPF
 	if (!pte_unmap_same(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte)) {
 		if (page)
 			put_page(page);
 		goto out;
 	}
+#endif
 
 	entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
 	if (unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry))) {