[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200323164403.GZ20941@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:44:03 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)"
<longpeng2@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arei.gonglei@...wei.com, weidong.huang@...wei.com,
weifuqiang@...wei.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: fix a addressing exception caused by
huge_pte_offset()
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:40:31AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 07:54:32PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 3/22/20 7:03 PM, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020/3/22 7:38, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > >> On 2/21/20 7:33 PM, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
> > >>> From: Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>
> > I have not looked closely at the generated code for lookup_address_in_pgd.
> > It appears that it would dereference p4d, pud and pmd multiple times. Sean
> > seemed to think there was something about the calling context that would
> > make issues like those seen with huge_pte_offset less likely to happen. I
> > do not know if this is accurate or not.
>
> Only for KVM's calls to lookup_address_in_mm(), I can't speak to other
> calls that funnel into to lookup_address_in_pgd().
>
> KVM uses a combination of tracking and blocking mmu_notifier calls to ensure
> PTE changes/invalidations between gup() and lookup_address_in_pgd() cause a
> restart of the faulting instruction, and that pending changes/invalidations
> are blocked until installation of the pfn in KVM's secondary MMU completes.
>
> kvm_mmu_page_fault():
>
> mmu_seq = kvm->mmu_notifier_seq;
> smp_rmb();
>
> pfn = gup(hva);
>
> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> smp_rmb();
> if (kvm->mmu_notifier_seq != mmu_seq)
> goto out_unlock: // Restart guest, i.e. retry the fault
>
> lookup_address_in_mm(hva, ...);
It works because the mmu_lock spinlock is taken before and after any
change to the page table via invalidate_range_start/end() callbacks.
So if you are in the spinlock and mmu_notifier_count == 0, then nobody
can be writing to the page tables.
It is effectively a full page table lock, so any page table read under
that lock do not need to worry about any data races.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists