[PATCH v2 0/5] mm: reduce mmap_lock contention and improve page fault performance

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 05:51:23AM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:53 PM Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 12:56:59PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I think we either need to fix `fork()`, or keep the current
> > > > behavior of dropping the VMA lock before performing I/O.
> > >
> > > I see. So, this problem arises from the fact that we are changing the
> > > pagefaults requiring I/O operation to hold VMA lock...
> > > And you want to lock VMA on fork only if vma_is_anonymous(vma) ||
> > > is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags). So, we will be blocking page faults for
> > > anonymous and COW VMAs only while holding mmap_write_lock, preventing
> > > any VMA modification. On the surface, that looks ok to me but I might
> > > be missing some corner cases. If nobody sees any obvious issues, I
> > > think it's worth a try.
> >
> > Not sure if you noticed but I did raise concerns ;)
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize your first comment was a conceptual objection
> to this approach of allowing page faults to race with the fork.

Ah yeah it's understandable I think there's been so many threads in this
conversation that it's easy to get lost :)

>
>
> >
> > I wonder if you've confused the fault path and fork here, as I think Barry has
> > been a little unclear on that.
> >
> > What's being suggested in this thread is to fundamentally change fork behaviour
> > so it's different from the entire history of the kernel (or - presumably - at
> > least recent history :) and permit concurrent page faults to occur on a forking
> > process.
> >
> > I absolutely object to this for being pretty crazy. I mean I'm not sure we
> > really want to be simultaneously modifying page tables while invoking
> > copy_page_range()? No?
> >
> > OK you cover anon and MAP_PRIVATE file-backed but hang on there's
> > VM_COPY_ON_FORK too.. so PFN mapped, mixed map and (the accursed) UFFD W/P as
> > well as possibly-guard region containing VMAs now can have page tables raced.
>
> Ugh, yeah, I realize now this is a minefield. Resolving all possible
> races there would not be trivial and might introduce other performance
> issues.

Yeah, it's dangerous waters :)

>
> >
> > That's not to mention anything else that relies on serialisation here (this
> > would be changing how forking has been done in general) that we may or may not
> > know about.
> >
> > The risk level is high, for what amounts to a hack to work around the fault
> > issue.
> >
> > I suggest that if we have a problem with the fault path, let's look at the fault
> > path :)
> >
> > So yeah I'm very opposed to this unless I'm somehow horribly mistaken here or a
> > very convincing argument is made.
>
> So, current approach of dropping locks during I/O sounds like still
> the best solution.

Yeah _of those proposed_ I think importantly. This doesn't mean there aren't
other potential solutions.

Thanks, Lorenzo

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to get Suren's input, however.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. of course.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Lorenzo
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > > Barry
> >
> > Cheers, Lorenzo