On 07/15/2014 12:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
f00cdc6df7d7 ("shmem: fix faulting into a hole while it's punched") was
buggy: Sasha sent a lockdep report to remind us that grabbing i_mutex in
the fault path is a no-no (write syscall may already hold i_mutex while
faulting user buffer).

We tried a completely different approach (see following patch) but that
proved inadequate: good enough for a rational workload, but not good
enough against trinity - which forks off so many mappings of the object
that contention on i_mmap_mutex while hole-puncher holds i_mutex builds
into serious starvation when concurrent faults force the puncher to fall
back to single-page unmap_mapping_range() searches of the i_mmap tree.

So return to the original umbrella approach, but keep away from i_mutex
this time.  We really don't want to bloat every shmem inode with a new
mutex or completion, just to protect this unlikely case from trinity.
So extend the original with wait_queue_head on stack at the hole-punch
end, and wait_queue item on the stack at the fault end.

Hi, thanks a lot, I will definitely test it soon, although my reproducer is rather limited - it already works fine with the current kernel. Trinity will be more useful here. But there's something that caught my eye so I though I would raise the concern now.

@@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
                        spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
                        shmem_falloc = inode->i_private;

Without ACCESS_ONCE, can shmem_falloc potentially become an alias on inode->i_private and later become re-read outside of the lock?

                        if (shmem_falloc &&
-                           !shmem_falloc->mode &&
+                           !shmem_falloc->waitq &&
                            index >= shmem_falloc->start &&
                            index < shmem_falloc->next)
                                shmem_falloc->nr_unswapped++;
@@ -1248,38 +1248,58 @@ static int shmem_fault(struct vm_area_st
         * Trinity finds that probing a hole which tmpfs is punching can
         * prevent the hole-punch from ever completing: which in turn
         * locks writers out with its hold on i_mutex.  So refrain from
-        * faulting pages into the hole while it's being punched, and
-        * wait on i_mutex to be released if vmf->flags permits.
+        * faulting pages into the hole while it's being punched.  Although
+        * shmem_undo_range() does remove the additions, it may be unable to
+        * keep up, as each new page needs its own unmap_mapping_range() call,
+        * and the i_mmap tree grows ever slower to scan if new vmas are added.
+        *
+        * It does not matter if we sometimes reach this check just before the
+        * hole-punch begins, so that one fault then races with the punch:
+        * we just need to make racing faults a rare case.
+        *
+        * The implementation below would be much simpler if we just used a
+        * standard mutex or completion: but we cannot take i_mutex in fault,
+        * and bloating every shmem inode for this unlikely case would be sad.
         */
        if (unlikely(inode->i_private)) {
                struct shmem_falloc *shmem_falloc;

                spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
                shmem_falloc = inode->i_private;

Same here.

-               if (!shmem_falloc ||
-                   shmem_falloc->mode != FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE ||
-                   vmf->pgoff < shmem_falloc->start ||
-                   vmf->pgoff >= shmem_falloc->next)
-                       shmem_falloc = NULL;
-               spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
-               /*
-                * i_lock has protected us from taking shmem_falloc seriously
-                * once return from shmem_fallocate() went back up that stack.
-                * i_lock does not serialize with i_mutex at all, but it does
-                * not matter if sometimes we wait unnecessarily, or sometimes
-                * miss out on waiting: we just need to make those cases rare.
-                */
-               if (shmem_falloc) {
+               if (shmem_falloc &&
+                   shmem_falloc->waitq &&

Here it's operating outside of lock.

+                   vmf->pgoff >= shmem_falloc->start &&
+                   vmf->pgoff < shmem_falloc->next) {
+                       wait_queue_head_t *shmem_falloc_waitq;
+                       DEFINE_WAIT(shmem_fault_wait);
+
+                       ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
                        if ((vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY) &&
                           !(vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)) {
+                               /* It's polite to up mmap_sem if we can */
                                up_read(&vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem);
-                               mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
-                               mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
-                               return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
+                               ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY;
                        }
-                       /* cond_resched? Leave that to GUP or return to user */
-                       return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
+
+                       shmem_falloc_waitq = shmem_falloc->waitq;
+                       prepare_to_wait(shmem_falloc_waitq, &shmem_fault_wait,
+                                       TASK_KILLABLE);
+                       spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
+                       schedule();
+
+                       /*
+                        * shmem_falloc_waitq points into the shmem_fallocate()
+                        * stack of the hole-punching task: shmem_falloc_waitq
+                        * is usually invalid by the time we reach here, but
+                        * finish_wait() does not dereference it in that case;
+                        * though i_lock needed lest racing with wake_up_all().
+                        */
+                       spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
+                       finish_wait(shmem_falloc_waitq, &shmem_fault_wait);
+                       spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
+                       return ret;
                }
+               spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
        }

        error = shmem_getpage(inode, vmf->pgoff, &vmf->page, SGP_CACHE, &ret);

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to