Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:26:46 -0700
From:	Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>
To:	Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@...il.com>
CC:	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
	Brendan Conoboy <blc@...hat.com>,
	Joe Donohue <jdonohue@...hat.com>,
	Duncan Poole <dpoole@...dia.com>,
	Sherry Cheung <SCheung@...dia.com>,
	Subhash Gutti <sgutti@...dia.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	Lucien Dunning <ldunning@...dia.com>,
	Cameron Buschardt <cabuschardt@...dia.com>,
	Arvind Gopalakrishnan <arvindg@...dia.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>,
	Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
	Ben Sander <ben.sander@....com>,
	Greg Stoner <Greg.Stoner@....com>,
	John Bridgman <John.Bridgman@....com>,
	Michael Mantor <Michael.Mantor@....com>,
	Paul Blinzer <Paul.Blinzer@....com>,
	Laurent Morichetti <Laurent.Morichetti@....com>,
	Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
	Oded Gabbay <Oded.Gabbay@....com>,
	Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	Jatin Kumar <jakumar@...dia.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/36] HMM: introduce heterogeneous memory management
 v3.



On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 06:15:08PM -0700, Mark Hairgrove wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > > There is no race here, the mirror struct will only be freed once as again
> > > the list is a synchronization point. Whoever remove the mirror from the
> > > list is responsible to drop the list reference.
> > > 
> > > In the fixed code the only thing that will happen twice is the ->release()
> > > callback. Even that can be work around to garanty it is call only once.
> > > 
> > > Anyway i do not see anyrace here.
> > > 
> > 
> > The mirror lifetime is fine. The problem I see is with the device lifetime 
> > on a multi-core system. Imagine this sequence:
> > 
> > - On CPU1 the mm associated with the mirror is going down
> > - On CPU2 the driver unregisters the mirror then the device
> > 
> > When this happens, the last device mutex_unlock on CPU1 is the only thing 
> > preventing the free of the device in CPU2. That doesn't work, as described 
> > in this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/2/997
> > 
> > Here's the full sequence again with mutex_unlock split apart. Hopefully 
> > this shows the device_unregister problem more clearly:
> > 
> > CPU1 (mm release)                   CPU2 (driver)
> > ----------------------              ----------------------
> > hmm_notifier_release
> >   down_write(&hmm->rwsem);
> >   hlist_del_init(&mirror->mlist);
> >   up_write(&hmm->rwsem);
> > 
> >   // CPU1 thread is preempted or 
> >   // something
> >                                     hmm_mirror_unregister
> >                                       hmm_mirror_kill
> >                                         down_write(&hmm->rwsem);
> >                                         // mirror removed by CPU1 already
> >                                         // so hlist_unhashed returns 1
> >                                         up_write(&hmm->rwsem);
> > 
> >                                       hmm_mirror_unref(&mirror);
> >                                       // Mirror ref now 1
> > 
> >                                       // CPU2 thread is preempted or
> >                                       // something
> > // CPU1 thread is scheduled
> > 
> > hmm_mirror_unref(&mirror);
> >   // Mirror ref now 0, cleanup
> >   hmm_mirror_destroy(&mirror)
> >     mutex_lock(&device->mutex);
> >     list_del_init(&mirror->dlist);
> >     device->ops->release(mirror);
> >       kfree(mirror);
> >                                       // CPU2 thread is scheduled, now
> >                                       // both CPU1 and CPU2 are running
> > 
> >                                     hmm_device_unregister
> >                                       mutex_lock(&device->mutex);
> >                                         mutex_optimistic_spin()
> >     mutex_unlock(&device->mutex);
> >       [...]
> >       __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath
> >         // CPU2 releases lock
> >         atomic_set(&lock->count, 1);
> >                                           // Spinning CPU2 acquires now-
> >                                           // free lock
> >                                       // mutex_lock returns
> >                                       // Device list empty
> >                                       mutex_unlock(&device->mutex);
> >                                       return 0;
> >                                     kfree(hmm_device);
> >         // CPU1 still accessing 
> >         // hmm_device->mutex in 
> >         //__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath
> 
> Ok i see the race you are afraid of and really it is an unlikely one
> __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath() take a spinlock right after allowing
> other to take the mutex, when we are in your scenario there is no
> contention on that spinlock so it is taken right away and as there
> is no one in the mutex wait list then it goes directly to unlock the
> spinlock and return. You can ignore the debug function as if debugging
> is enabled than the mutex_lock() would need to also take the spinlock
> and thus you would have proper synchronization btw 2 thread thanks to
> the mutex.wait_lock.
> 
> So basicly while CPU1 is going :
> spin_lock(mutex.wait_lock)
> if (!list_empty(mutex.wait_list)) {
>   // wait_list is empty so branch not taken
> }
> spin_unlock(mutex.wait_lock)
> 
> CPU2 would have to test the mirror list and mutex_unlock and return
> before the spin_unlock() of CPU1. This is a tight race, i can add a
> synchronize_rcu() to device_unregister after the mutex_unlock() so
> that we also add a grace period before the device is potentialy freed
> which should make that race completely unlikely.
> 
> Moreover for something really bad to happen it would need that the
> freed memory to be reallocated right away by some other thread. Which
> really sound unlikely unless CPU1 is the slowest of all :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jérôme
> 

But CPU1 could get preempted between the atomic_set and the 
spin_lock_mutex, and then it doesn't matter whether or not a grace period 
has elapsed before CPU2 proceeds.

Making race conditions less likely just makes them harder to pinpoint when 
they inevitably appear in the wild. I don't think it makes sense to spend 
any effort in making a race condition less likely, and that thread I 
referenced (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/2/997) is fairly strong evidence 
that fixing this race actually matters. So, I think this race condition 
really needs to be fixed.

One fix is for hmm_mirror_unregister to wait for hmm_notifier_release 
completion between hmm_mirror_kill and hmm_mirror_unref. It can do this by 
calling synchronize_srcu() on the mmu_notifier's srcu. This has the 
benefit that the driver is guaranteed not to get the "mm is dead" callback 
after hmm_mirror_unregister returns.

In fact, are there any callbacks on the mirror that can arrive after 
hmm_mirror_unregister? If so, how will hmm_device_unregister solve them?

>From a general standpoint, hmm_device_unregister must perform some kind of 
synchronization to be sure that all mirrors are completely released and 
done and no new callbacks will trigger. Since that has to be true, can't 
that synchronization be moved into hmm_mirror_unregister instead?

If that happens there's no need for a "mirror can be freed" ->release 
callback at all because the driver is guaranteed that a mirror is done 
after hmm_mirror_unregister.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists