On 13.10.23 00:01, Peter Xu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 11:42:26PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com>
For now, folio_move_anon_rmap() was only used to move a folio to a
different anon_vma after fork(), whereby the root anon_vma stayed
unchanged. For that, it was sufficient to hold the folio lock when
calling folio_move_anon_rmap().
However, we want to make use of folio_move_anon_rmap() to move folios
between VMAs that have a different root anon_vma. As folio_referenced()
performs an RMAP walk without holding the folio lock but only holding the
anon_vma in read mode, holding the folio lock is insufficient.
When moving to an anon_vma with a different root anon_vma, we'll have to
hold both, the folio lock and the anon_vma lock in write mode.
Consequently, whenever we succeeded in folio_lock_anon_vma_read() to
read-lock the anon_vma, we have to re-check if the mapping was changed
in the meantime. If that was the case, we have to retry.
Note that folio_move_anon_rmap() must only be called if the anon page is
exclusive to a process, and must not be called on KSM folios.
This is a preparation for UFFDIO_MOVE, which will hold the folio lock,
the anon_vma lock in write mode, and the mmap_lock in read mode.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <sur...@google.com>
---
mm/rmap.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index c1f11c9dbe61..f9ddc50269d2 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -542,7 +542,9 @@ struct anon_vma *folio_lock_anon_vma_read(struct folio
*folio,
struct anon_vma *root_anon_vma;
unsigned long anon_mapping;
+retry:
rcu_read_lock();
+retry_under_rcu:
anon_mapping = (unsigned long)READ_ONCE(folio->mapping);
if ((anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS) != PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
goto out;
@@ -552,6 +554,16 @@ struct anon_vma *folio_lock_anon_vma_read(struct folio
*folio,
anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
root_anon_vma = READ_ONCE(anon_vma->root);
if (down_read_trylock(&root_anon_vma->rwsem)) {
+ /*
+ * folio_move_anon_rmap() might have changed the anon_vma as we
+ * might not hold the folio lock here.
+ */
+ if (unlikely((unsigned long)READ_ONCE(folio->mapping) !=
+ anon_mapping)) {
+ up_read(&root_anon_vma->rwsem);
+ goto retry_under_rcu;
Is adding this specific label worthwhile? How about rcu unlock and goto
retry (then it'll also be clear that we won't hold rcu read lock for
unpredictable time)?
+1, sounds good to me
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
