Re: WARNING in __mmdrop

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/23 äå11:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:34:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/23 äå6:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Yes, since there could be multiple co-current invalidation requests. We need
> > > > > count them to make sure we don't pin wrong pages.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I also wonder about ordering. kvm has this:
> > > > > >           /*
> > > > > >             * Used to check for invalidations in progress, of the pfn that is
> > > > > >             * returned by pfn_to_pfn_prot below.
> > > > > >             */
> > > > > >            mmu_seq = kvm->mmu_notifier_seq;
> > > > > >            /*
> > > > > >             * Ensure the read of mmu_notifier_seq isn't reordered with PTE reads in
> > > > > >             * gfn_to_pfn_prot() (which calls get_user_pages()), so that we don't
> > > > > >             * risk the page we get a reference to getting unmapped before we have a
> > > > > >             * chance to grab the mmu_lock without mmu_notifier_retry() noticing.
> > > > > >             *
> > > > > >             * This smp_rmb() pairs with the effective smp_wmb() of the combination
> > > > > >             * of the pte_unmap_unlock() after the PTE is zapped, and the
> > > > > >             * spin_lock() in kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_<page|range_end>() before
> > > > > >             * mmu_notifier_seq is incremented.
> > > > > >             */
> > > > > >            smp_rmb();
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > does this apply to us? Can't we use a seqlock instead so we do
> > > > > > not need to worry?
> > > > > I'm not familiar with kvm MMU internals, but we do everything under of
> > > > > mmu_lock.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > I don't think this helps at all.
> > > > 
> > > > There's no lock between checking the invalidate counter and
> > > > get user pages fast within vhost_map_prefetch. So it's possible
> > > > that get user pages fast reads PTEs speculatively before
> > > > invalidate is read.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > 
> > > In vhost_map_prefetch() we do:
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> > > 
> > >  Â Â Â Â ...
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ err = -EFAULT;
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (vq->invalidate_count)
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ goto err;
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ...
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ npinned = __get_user_pages_fast(uaddr->uaddr, npages,
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ uaddr->write, pages);
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ...
> > > 
> > >  ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> > > 
> > > Is this not sufficient?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > So what orders __get_user_pages_fast wrt invalidate_count read?
> 
> 
> So in invalidate_end() callback we have:
> 
> spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> --vq->invalidate_count;
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> 
> 
> So even PTE is read speculatively before reading invalidate_count (only in
> the case of invalidate_count is zero). The spinlock has guaranteed that we
> won't read any stale PTEs.
> 
> Thanks

I'm sorry I just do not get the argument.
If you want to order two reads you need an smp_rmb
or stronger between them executed on the same CPU.

Executing any kind of barrier on another CPU
will have no ordering effect on the 1st one.


So if CPU1 runs the prefetch, and CPU2 runs invalidate
callback, read of invalidate counter on CPU1 can bypass
read of PTE on CPU1 unless there's a barrier
in between, and nothing CPU2 does can affect that outcome.


What did I miss?

> 
> >