Message ID | 20190806231548.25242-3-jgg@ziepe.ca (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | Add mmu_notifier_get/put for managing mmu notifier registrations | expand |
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:15:39PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> > > A prior commit e0f3c3f78da2 ("mm/mmu_notifier: init notifier if necessary") > made an attempt at doing this, but had to be reverted as calling > the GFP_KERNEL allocator under the i_mmap_mutex causes deadlock, see > commit 35cfa2b0b491 ("mm/mmu_notifier: allocate mmu_notifier in advance"). > > However, we can avoid that problem by doing the allocation only under > the mmap_sem, which is already happening. > > Since all writers to mm->mmu_notifier_mm hold the write side of the > mmap_sem reading it under that sem is deterministic and we can use that to > decide if the allocation path is required, without speculation. > > The actual update to mmu_notifier_mm must still be done under the > mm_take_all_locks() to ensure read-side coherency. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
On 8/6/19 4:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> > > A prior commit e0f3c3f78da2 ("mm/mmu_notifier: init notifier if necessary") > made an attempt at doing this, but had to be reverted as calling > the GFP_KERNEL allocator under the i_mmap_mutex causes deadlock, see > commit 35cfa2b0b491 ("mm/mmu_notifier: allocate mmu_notifier in advance"). > > However, we can avoid that problem by doing the allocation only under > the mmap_sem, which is already happening. > > Since all writers to mm->mmu_notifier_mm hold the write side of the > mmap_sem reading it under that sem is deterministic and we can use that to > decide if the allocation path is required, without speculation. > > The actual update to mmu_notifier_mm must still be done under the > mm_take_all_locks() to ensure read-side coherency. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c index 218a6f108bc2d0..696810f632ade1 100644 --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c @@ -242,27 +242,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range); */ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm) { - struct mmu_notifier_mm *mmu_notifier_mm; + struct mmu_notifier_mm *mmu_notifier_mm = NULL; int ret; lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem); BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0); - mmu_notifier_mm = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mmu_notifier_mm), GFP_KERNEL); - if (unlikely(!mmu_notifier_mm)) - return -ENOMEM; + if (!mm->mmu_notifier_mm) { + /* + * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we + * know that mm->mmu_notifier_mm can't change while we hold + * the write side of the mmap_sem. + */ + mmu_notifier_mm = + kmalloc(sizeof(struct mmu_notifier_mm), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!mmu_notifier_mm) + return -ENOMEM; + + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&mmu_notifier_mm->list); + spin_lock_init(&mmu_notifier_mm->lock); + } ret = mm_take_all_locks(mm); if (unlikely(ret)) goto out_clean; - if (!mm_has_notifiers(mm)) { - INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&mmu_notifier_mm->list); - spin_lock_init(&mmu_notifier_mm->lock); - - mm->mmu_notifier_mm = mmu_notifier_mm; - mmu_notifier_mm = NULL; - } + /* Pairs with the mmdrop in mmu_notifier_unregister_* */ mmgrab(mm); /* @@ -273,14 +278,19 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm) * We can't race against any other mmu notifier method either * thanks to mm_take_all_locks(). */ + if (mmu_notifier_mm) + mm->mmu_notifier_mm = mmu_notifier_mm; + spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock); hlist_add_head_rcu(&mn->hlist, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list); spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock); mm_drop_all_locks(mm); + BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0); + return 0; + out_clean: kfree(mmu_notifier_mm); - BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0); return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__mmu_notifier_register);