Message-ID: <20170417153220.531a0600@t450s.home>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:32:20 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <eric.auger@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <slp@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] vfio/type1: Remove locked page accounting
 workqueue

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:02:12 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com> wrote:

> On 4/18/2017 12:49 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:35:06 +0530
> > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 4/17/2017 8:02 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:47:54 +0800
> >>> Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:42:27PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>    
> >>>>> -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> >>>>> +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage, bool lock_cap)
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>> -	struct vwork *vwork;
> >>>>>  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> >>>>>  	bool is_current;
> >>>>> +	int ret;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	if (!npage)
> >>>>> -		return;
> >>>>> +		return 0;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> >>>>>  	if (!mm)
> >>>>> -		return; /* process exited */
> >>>>> +		return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -	if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> >>>>> -		mm->locked_vm += npage;
> >>>>> -		up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >>>>> -		if (!is_current)
> >>>>> -			mmput(mm);
> >>>>> -		return;
> >>>>> -	}
> >>>>> +	ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >>>>> +	if (!ret) {
> >>>>> +		if (npage < 0 || lock_cap) {      
> >>>>
> >>>> Nit: maybe we can avoid passing in lock_cap in all the callers of
> >>>> vfio_lock_acct() and fetch it via has_capability() only if npage < 0?
> >>>> IMHO that'll keep the vfio_lock_acct() interface cleaner, and we won't
> >>>> need to pass in "false" any time when doing unpins.    
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately vfio_pin_pages_remote() needs to know about lock_cap
> >>> since it tests whether the user is exceeding their locked memory
> >>> limit.  The other callers could certainly get away with
> >>> vfio_lock_acct() testing the capability itself but that would add a
> >>> redundant call for the most common user.  I'm not a big fan of passing
> >>> a lock_cap bool either, but it seemed the best fix for now.  The
> >>> cleanest alternative I can up with is this (untested):
> >>>     
> >>
> >> In my opinion, passing 'bool lock_cap' looks much clean and simple.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>  
> > 
> > Well shoot, I was just starting to warm up to the bool*.  I like that
> > we're not presuming the polarity for the callers we expect to be
> > removing pages and I generally just dislike passing fixed bool
> > parameters to change the function behavior.  I've cleaned it up a bit
> > further and was starting to do some testing on this which I'd propose
> > for v5.  Does it change your opinion?  
> 
> If passing fixed bool parameter is the concern then I would lean towards
> Peter's suggestion. vfio_pin_pages_remote() will check lock capability
> outside vfio_lock_acct() and again in vfio_lock_acct(). At other places,
> it will be takes care within vfio_lock_acct()

Sorry, I don't see that as a viable option.  Testing for CAP_IPC_LOCK in
both vfio_pin_pages_remote() and vfio_lock_acct() results in over a
10% performance hit on the mapping path with a custom micro-benchmark.
In fact, it suggests we should probably pass that from even higher in
the call stack.  Thanks,

Alex

> > 
> > commit cd61c5f507d614ac14b75b0a548c8738deff88ea
> > Author: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > Date:   Thu Apr 13 14:10:15 2017 -0600
> > 
> >     vfio/type1: Remove locked page accounting workqueue
> >     
> >     If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> >     defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task.  This has a
> >     few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> >     might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> >     race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed.  The
> >     original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> >     reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> >     of correctness.  Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> >     callers to allow for failure.  We can also now recheck the limit under
> >     write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
> >     
> >     vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> >     which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> >     that we're exceeding the user's memory limits.  This avoids the
> >     current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> >     fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> >     entire vfio_dma.
> >     
> >     Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >     Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index 32d2633092a3..a8a079ba9477 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -246,69 +246,46 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -struct vwork {
> > -	struct mm_struct	*mm;
> > -	long			npage;
> > -	struct work_struct	work;
> > -};
> > -
> > -/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
> > -static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
> > -{
> > -	struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
> > -	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > -
> > -	mm = vwork->mm;
> > -	down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > -	mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
> > -	up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > -	mmput(mm);
> > -	kfree(vwork);
> > -}
> > -
> > -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> > +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage, bool *lock_cap)
> >  {
> > -	struct vwork *vwork;
> >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> >  	bool is_current;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	if (!npage)
> > -		return;
> > +		return 0;
> >  
> >  	is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
> >  
> >  	mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> >  	if (!mm)
> > -		return; /* process exited */
> > +		return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
> >  
> > -	if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> > -		mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > -		up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > -		if (!is_current)
> > -			mmput(mm);
> > -		return;
> > -	}
> > +	ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > +	if (!ret) {
> > +		if (npage > 0) {
> > +			if (lock_cap ? !*lock_cap :
> > +			    !has_capability(task, CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> > +				unsigned long limit;
> > +
> > +				limit = task_rlimit(task,
> > +						RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +				if (mm->locked_vm + npage > limit)
> > +					ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (!ret)
> > +			mm->locked_vm += npage;
> >  
> > -	if (is_current) {
> > -		mm = get_task_mm(task);
> > -		if (!mm)
> > -			return;
> > +		up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
> > -	 * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
> > -	 * wouldn't need this silliness
> > -	 */
> > -	vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
> > -	if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
> > +	if (!is_current)
> >  		mmput(mm);
> > -		return;
> > -	}
> > -	INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
> > -	vwork->mm = mm;
> > -	vwork->npage = npage;
> > -	schedule_work(&vwork->work);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -405,7 +382,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
> >  static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> >  				  long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +	unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >  	bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
> >  	long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
> >  	bool rsvd;
> > @@ -442,8 +419,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> >  	/* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
> >  	for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
> >  	     pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > -		unsigned long pfn = 0;
> > -
> >  		ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			break;
> > @@ -460,14 +435,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> >  				put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> >  				pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
> >  					__func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > -				break;
> > +				ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +				goto unpin_out;
> >  			}
> >  			lock_acct++;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> >  out:
> > -	vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> > +	ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct, &lock_cap);
> > +
> > +unpin_out:
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		if (!rsvd) {
> > +			for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
> > +				put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	return pinned;
> >  }
> > @@ -488,7 +474,7 @@ static long vfio_unpin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t iova,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (do_accounting)
> > -		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, locked - unlocked);
> > +		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, locked - unlocked, NULL);
> >  
> >  	return unlocked;
> >  }
> > @@ -522,8 +508,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> >  		goto pin_page_exit;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
> > -		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> > +	if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
> > +		ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1, &lock_cap);
> > +		if (ret) {
> > +			put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
> > +			goto pin_page_exit;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	ret = 1;
> >  
> >  pin_page_exit:
> > @@ -543,7 +535,7 @@ static int vfio_unpin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t iova,
> >  	unlocked = vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(dma, vpfn);
> >  
> >  	if (do_accounting)
> > -		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, -unlocked);
> > +		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, -unlocked, NULL);
> >  
> >  	return unlocked;
> >  }
> > @@ -740,7 +732,7 @@ static long vfio_unmap_unpin(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma,
> >  
> >  	dma->iommu_mapped = false;
> >  	if (do_accounting) {
> > -		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, -unlocked);
> > +		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, -unlocked, NULL);
> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> >  	return unlocked;
> > @@ -1382,7 +1374,7 @@ static void vfio_iommu_unmap_unpin_reaccount(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> >  			if (!is_invalid_reserved_pfn(vpfn->pfn))
> >  				locked++;
> >  		}
> > -		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, locked - unlocked);
> > +		vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, locked - unlocked, NULL);
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > 
> > Patch 2/2 would clearly change the &lock_cap in
> > vfio_pin_page_external() to a NULL, so only _remote passes a pointer
> > there.  Thanks,
> > 
> > Alex
> >   

Powered by blists - more mailing lists