From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79BCC43381 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:16:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8321120842 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:16:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="dcvMx2nn" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726952AbfBYMQH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:16:07 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com ([209.85.214.194]:34115 "EHLO mail-pl1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726906AbfBYMQG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:16:06 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d15so4446686plr.1 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:16:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QoHK3PgkDfCguINsmSF+2MuDz+h6HTxyVRXfDqtpRZg=; b=dcvMx2nnQUb9KYZws9peECQMeHPpL5aFu9AtR8QIYHJRPARWGWWLtCeJWg2lkjFExc +Yu9GZq2U/OUigzY7nhXv/N12yv7ZDnTQVXvXdoRpfC5IPwdNBlCKHAT9hHWBgQltGbm 6J1mi3qweufoa7wFeQ6aJOEODl611JN3aFUwBbMNoegswcIM9ZKNAYWbC7SHM/oxs+xJ sML5p6lFAMh6zDGafz4iDkkp5h/bYb0pcfDQSeTWEdasAm58VHoNgKjj4DktD1XZRzSP Y6k1fNzfrebGzArL8N+Awr5NHTiUcSeCD8YvhAa3LYe8LjSBouDhGiD3BUQWP4/VKnON cIVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QoHK3PgkDfCguINsmSF+2MuDz+h6HTxyVRXfDqtpRZg=; b=EPomhEVQBOW8eGQemu4kFcXdCBZZ/iicpoirF4cdL4YG6Xqo0fE/o/NvGxFsL0kVcb s+mIXQT3wBIn1UU7sWlhlAB9k/7MoJUPC49GM6sBJLRH1SfNa4dBOYIDS9T8FwxEnzGv 5c1Ks59q/sxgXKjQa3XGRxNEChqKjOTHAB8lALmY4eYbqHealnTBxZ2DMYjNID81RUjB t1YosjovsR/+dBRxCq7xFnpDIyY1VWMLf7T7WkTm12p0Yzzvw6gkHaO3DA6lwKFJ5Q9T 8H3rmmXrFYzFR8ATexYJttI/p63P/rDhosc5UySqaqHIdrjpR9nRIfJQ9YyTR4m88URe qaXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua1MRp5JSSsvpwbg9K7fgwezj2P/rTiqzAqsvhYQGzKcKPZzcaJ RCVaZ90ZOITp+LAtyqlDJAJu5A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iae/hpdKws0On9nrGt+ofyS6R3GDjkkiVtcw6MZEHcEu3RLsH4W58bju8+OLMI5bulx6+MHGA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b03:: with SMTP id o3mr20151663plk.126.1551096965898; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from kshutemo-mobl1.localdomain ([192.55.54.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h64sm16611921pfc.142.2019.02.25.04.16.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by kshutemo-mobl1.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97A8B301717; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:16:01 +0300 (+03) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:16:01 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Oscar Salvador , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, hughd@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, jglisse@redhat.com, yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm,mremap: Bail out earlier in mremap_to under map pressure Message-ID: <20190225121601.k4g7cabebeemthae@kshutemo-mobl1> References: <20190221085406.10852-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20190222130125.apa2ysnahgfuj2vx@kshutemo-mobl1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:46:46PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 2/22/19 2:01 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:54:06AM +0100, Oscar Salvador wrote: > >> When using mremap() syscall in addition to MREMAP_FIXED flag, > >> mremap() calls mremap_to() which does the following: > >> > >> 1) unmaps the destination region where we are going to move the map > >> 2) If the new region is going to be smaller, we unmap the last part > >> of the old region > >> > >> Then, we will eventually call move_vma() to do the actual move. > >> > >> move_vma() checks whether we are at least 4 maps below max_map_count > >> before going further, otherwise it bails out with -ENOMEM. > >> The problem is that we might have already unmapped the vma's in steps > >> 1) and 2), so it is not possible for userspace to figure out the state > >> of the vma's after it gets -ENOMEM, and it gets tricky for userspace > >> to clean up properly on error path. > >> > >> While it is true that we can return -ENOMEM for more reasons > >> (e.g: see may_expand_vm() or move_page_tables()), I think that we can > >> avoid this scenario in concret if we check early in mremap_to() if the > >> operation has high chances to succeed map-wise. > >> > >> Should not be that the case, we can bail out before we even try to unmap > >> anything, so we make sure the vma's are left untouched in case we are likely > >> to be short of maps. > >> > >> The thumb-rule now is to rely on the worst-scenario case we can have. > >> That is when both vma's (old region and new region) are going to be split > >> in 3, so we get two more maps to the ones we already hold (one per each). > >> If current map count + 2 maps still leads us to 4 maps below the threshold, > >> we are going to pass the check in move_vma(). > >> > >> Of course, this is not free, as it might generate false positives when it is > >> true that we are tight map-wise, but the unmap operation can release several > >> vma's leading us to a good state. > >> > >> Because of that I am sending this as a RFC. > >> Another approach was also investigated [1], but it may be too much hassle > >> for what it brings. > > > > I believe we don't need the check in move_vma() with this patch. Or do we? > > move_vma() can be also called directly from SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mremap) for > the non-MMAP_FIXED case. So unless there's further refactoring, the > check is still needed. Okay, makes sense. > >> > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190219155320.tkfkwvqk53tfdojt@d104.suse.de/ > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov -- Kirill A. Shutemov