Message-ID: <3c3bb2a3-907b-819d-83ee-2b29802a5bda@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:41:41 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
CC:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <tom@...pey.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <benve@...co.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

On 1/28/19 5:23 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 04:22:16PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 1/23/19 11:04 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 07:02:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Tue 22-01-19 11:46:13, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu 17-01-19 10:17:59, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed 16-01-19 08:08:14, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:38:19PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue 15-01-19 09:07:59, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. So with page lock it would actually look like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> get_page_pin()
>>>>>>>>>>> 	lock_page(page);
>>>>>>>>>>> 	wait_for_stable_page();
>>>>>>>>>>> 	atomic_add(&page->_refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
>>>>>>>>>>> 	unlock_page(page);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And if we perform page_pinned() check under page lock, then if
>>>>>>>>>>> page_pinned() returned false, we are sure page is not and will not be
>>>>>>>>>>> pinned until we drop the page lock (and also until page writeback is
>>>>>>>>>>> completed if needed).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After some more though, why do we even need wait_for_stable_page() and
>>>>>>>>>> lock_page() in get_page_pin()?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> During writepage page_mkclean() will write protect all page tables. So
>>>>>>>>>> there can be no new writeable GUP pins until we unlock the page as all such
>>>>>>>>>> GUPs will have to first go through fault and ->page_mkwrite() handler. And
>>>>>>>>>> that will wait on page lock and do wait_for_stable_page() for us anyway.
>>>>>>>>>> Am I just confused?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah with page lock it should synchronize on the pte but you still
>>>>>>>>> need to check for writeback iirc the page is unlocked after file
>>>>>>>>> system has queue up the write and thus the page can be unlock with
>>>>>>>>> write back pending (and PageWriteback() == trye) and i am not sure
>>>>>>>>> that in that states we can safely let anyone write to that page. I
>>>>>>>>> am assuming that in some case the block device also expect stable
>>>>>>>>> page content (RAID stuff).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the PageWriteback() test is not only for racing page_mkclean()/
>>>>>>>>> test_set_page_writeback() and GUP but also for pending write back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this is prevented by wait_for_stable_page() that is already present in
>>>>>>>> ->page_mkwrite() handlers. Look:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ->writepage()
>>>>>>>>    /* Page is locked here */
>>>>>>>>    clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)
>>>>>>>>      page_mkclean(page)
>>>>>>>>        -> page tables get writeprotected
>>>>>>>>      /* The following line will be added by our patches */
>>>>>>>>      if (page_pinned(page)) -> bounce
>>>>>>>>      TestClearPageDirty(page)
>>>>>>>>    set_page_writeback(page);
>>>>>>>>    unlock_page(page);
>>>>>>>>    ...submit_io...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IRQ
>>>>>>>>    - IO completion
>>>>>>>>    end_page_writeback()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if GUP happens before page_mkclean() writeprotects corresponding PTE
>>>>>>>> (and these two actions are synchronized on the PTE lock), page_pinned()
>>>>>>>> will see the increment and report the page as pinned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If GUP happens after page_mkclean() writeprotects corresponding PTE, it
>>>>>>>> will fault:
>>>>>>>>    handle_mm_fault()
>>>>>>>>      do_wp_page()
>>>>>>>>        wp_page_shared()
>>>>>>>>          do_page_mkwrite()
>>>>>>>>            ->page_mkwrite() - that is block_page_mkwrite() or
>>>>>>>> 	    iomap_page_mkwrite() or whatever filesystem provides
>>>>>>>> 	  lock_page(page)
>>>>>>>>            ... prepare page ...
>>>>>>>> 	  wait_for_stable_page(page) -> this blocks until IO completes
>>>>>>>> 	    if someone cares about pages not being modified while under IO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The case i am worried is GUP see pte with write flag set but has not
>>>>>>> lock the page yet (GUP is get pte first, then pte to page then lock
>>>>>>> page), then it locks the page but the lock page can make it wait for a
>>>>>>> racing page_mkclean()...write back that have not yet write protected
>>>>>>> the pte the GUP just read. So by the time GUP has the page locked the
>>>>>>> pte it read might no longer have the write flag set. Hence why you need
>>>>>>> to also check for write back after taking the page lock. Alternatively
>>>>>>> you could recheck the pte after a successful try_lock on the page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't really possible. GUP does:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> get_user_pages()
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>    follow_page_mask()
>>>>>>    ...
>>>>>>      follow_page_pte()
>>>>>>        ptep = pte_offset_map_lock()
>>>>>>        check permissions and page sanity
>>>>>>        if (flags & FOLL_GET)
>>>>>>          get_page(page); -> this would become
>>>>>> 	  atomic_add(&page->_refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
>>>>>>        pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> page_mkclean() on the other hand grabs the same pte lock to change the pte
>>>>>> to write-protected. So after page_mkclean() has modified the PTE we are
>>>>>> racing on for access, we are sure to either see increased _refcount or get
>>>>>> page fault from GUP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we see increased _refcount, we bounce the page and are fine. If GUP
>>>>>> faults, we will wait for page lock (so wait until page is prepared for IO
>>>>>> and has PageWriteback set) while handling the fault, then enter
>>>>>> ->page_mkwrite, which will do wait_for_stable_page() -> wait for
>>>>>> outstanding writeback to complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I still conclude - no need for page lock in the GUP path at all AFAICT.
>>>>>> In fact we rely on the very same page fault vs page writeback synchronization
>>>>>> for normal user faults as well. And normal user mmap access is even nastier
>>>>>> than GUP access because the CPU reads page tables without taking PTE lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the "slow" GUP path you are right you do not need a lock as the
>>>>> page table lock give you the ordering. For the GUP fast path you
>>>>> would either need the lock or the memory barrier with the test for
>>>>> page write back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe an easier thing is to convert GUP fast to try to take the page
>>>>> table lock if it fails taking the page table lock then we fall back
>>>>> to slow GUP path. Otherwise then we have the same garantee as the slow
>>>>> path.
>>>>
>>>> You're right I was looking at the wrong place for GUP_fast() path. But I
>>>> still don't think anything special (i.e. page lock or new barrier) is
>>>> necessary. GUP_fast() takes care already now that it cannot race with page
>>>> unmapping or write-protection (as there are other places in MM that rely on
>>>> this). Look, gup_pte_range() has:
>>>>
>>>>                  if (!page_cache_get_speculative(head))
>>>>                          goto pte_unmap;
>>>>
>>>>                  if (unlikely(pte_val(pte) != pte_val(*ptep))) {
>>>>                          put_page(head);
>>>>                          goto pte_unmap;
>>>>                  }
>>>>
>>>> So that page_cache_get_speculative() will become
>>>> page_cache_pin_speculative() to increment refcount by PAGE_PIN_BIAS instead
>>>> of 1. That is atomic ordered operation so it cannot be reordered with the
>>>> following check that PTE stayed same. So once page_mkclean() write-protects
>>>> PTE, there can be no new pins from GUP_fast() and we are sure all
>>>> succeeding pins are visible in page->_refcount after page_mkclean()
>>>> completes. Again this is nothing new, other mm code already relies on
>>>> either seeing page->_refcount incremented or GUP fast bailing out (e.g. DAX
>>>> relies on this). Although strictly speaking I'm not 100% sure what prevents
>>>> page->_refcount load to be speculatively reordered before PTE update even
>>>> in current places using this but there's so much stuff inbetween that
>>>> there's probably something ;). But we could add smp_rmb() after
>>>> page_mkclean() before changing page_pinned() for the peace of mind I guess.
>>>
>>> Yeah i think you are right, i missed the check on same pte value
>>> and the atomic inc in page_cache_get_speculative() is a barrier.
>>> I do not think the barrier would be necessary as page_mkclean is
>>> taking and dropping locks so those should have enough barriering.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jan, Jerome,
>>
>> OK, this seems to be up and running locally, but while putting together
>> documentation and polishing up things, I noticed that there is one last piece
>> that I don't quite understand, after all. The page_cache_get_speculative()
>> existing documentation explains how refcount synchronizes these things, but I
>> don't see how that helps with synchronization page_mkclean and gup, in this
>> situation:
>>
>>      gup_fast gets the refcount and rechecks the pte hasn't changed
>>
>>      meanwhile, page_mkclean...wait, how does refcount come into play here?
>>      page_mkclean can remove the mapping and insert a write-protected pte,
>>      regardless of page refcount, correct?  Help? :)
> 
> Correct, page_mkclean() does not check the refcount and do not need to
> check it. We need to check for the page pin after the page_mkclean when
> code is done prepping the page for io (clear_page_dirty_for_io).
> 
> The race Jan and I were discussing was about wether we needed to lock
> the page or not and we do not. For slow path page_mkclean and GUP_slow
> will synchronize on the page table lock. For GUP_fast the fast code will
> back off if the pte is not the same and thus either we see the pin after
> page_mkclean() or GUP_fast back off. You will never have code that miss
> the pin after page_mkclean() and GUP_fast that did not back off.

Here is the case I'm wondering about:

thread A                             thread B
--------                             --------
                                      gup_fast
page_mkclean
     is page gup-pinned?(no)
                                          page_cache_get_speculative
                                              (gup-pins the page here)
                                          check pte_val unchanged (yes)
        set_pte_at()

...and now thread A has created a read-only PTE, after gup_fast walked
the page tables and found a writeable entry. And so far, thread A has
not seen that the page is pinned.

What am I missing here? The above seems like a problem even before we
change anything.

> 
> Now the page_cache_get_speculative() is for another race when a page is
> freed concurrently. page_cache_get_speculative() only inc the refcount
> if the page is not already freed ie refcount != 0. So GUP_fast has 2
> exclusions mechanisms, one for racing modification to the page table
> like page_mkclean (pte the same after incrementing the refcount) and one
> for racing put_page (only increment refcount if it is not 0). Here for
> what we want we just modify this second mechanisms to add the bias
> value not just 1 to the refcount. This keep both mechanisms intacts
> and give us the page pin test through refcount bias value.
> 
> Note that page_mkclean can not race with a put_page() as whoever calls
> page_mkclean already hold a reference on the page and thus no put_page
> can free the page.
> 
> Does that help ?

Yes...getting close... :)

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Powered by blists - more mailing lists