linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rdma-next 2/7] RDMA/mlx5: Replace cache list with Xarray

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:46:11 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Aharon Landau <aharonl@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 2/7] RDMA/mlx5: Replace cache list with Xarray

> @@ -166,14 +169,14 @@ static void create_mkey_callback(int status, struct mlx5_async_work *context)
>  
>  	WRITE_ONCE(dev->cache.last_add, jiffies);
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&ent->lock, flags);
> -	list_add_tail(&mr->list, &ent->head);
> -	ent->available_mrs++;
> +	xa_lock_irqsave(&ent->mkeys, flags);
> +	xa_ent = __xa_store(&ent->mkeys, ent->stored++, mr, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	WARN_ON(xa_ent != NULL);
> +	ent->pending--;
>  	ent->total_mrs++;
>  	/* If we are doing fill_to_high_water then keep going. */
>  	queue_adjust_cache_locked(ent);
> -	ent->pending--;
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ent->lock, flags);
> +	xa_unlock_irqrestore(&ent->mkeys, flags);
>  }
>  
>  static struct mlx5_ib_mr *alloc_cache_mr(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent, void *mkc)
> @@ -196,6 +199,25 @@ static struct mlx5_ib_mr *alloc_cache_mr(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent, void *mkc)
>  	return mr;
>  }
>  
> +static int _push_reserve_mkey(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent)
> +{
> +	unsigned long to_reserve;
> +	int rc;
> +
> +	while (true) {
> +		to_reserve = ent->reserved;
> +		rc = xa_err(__xa_cmpxchg(&ent->mkeys, to_reserve, NULL,
> +					 XA_ZERO_ENTRY, GFP_KERNEL));
> +		if (rc)
> +			return rc;

What about when old != NULL ?

> +		if (to_reserve != ent->reserved)
> +			continue;

There is an edge case where where reserved could have shrunk alot
while the lock was released, and xa_cmpxchg could succeed. The above
if will protect things, however a ZERO_ENTRY will have been written to
some weird place in the XA. It needs a 

 if (old == NULL) // ie we stored something someplace weird
    __xa_erase(&ent->mkeys, to_reserve)

> +		ent->reserved++;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /* Asynchronously schedule new MRs to be populated in the cache. */
>  static int add_keys(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent, unsigned int num)
>  {
> @@ -217,23 +239,32 @@ static int add_keys(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent, unsigned int num)
>  			err = -ENOMEM;
>  			break;
>  		}
> -		spin_lock_irq(&ent->lock);
> +		xa_lock_irq(&ent->mkeys);
>  		if (ent->pending >= MAX_PENDING_REG_MR) {
> +			xa_unlock_irq(&ent->mkeys);
>  			err = -EAGAIN;
> -			spin_unlock_irq(&ent->lock);
> +			kfree(mr);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		err = _push_reserve_mkey(ent);

The test of ent->pending is out of date now since this can drop the
lock

It feels like pending and (reserved - stored) are really the same
thing, so maybe just directly limit the number of reserved and test it
after

> @@ -287,39 +318,37 @@ static void remove_cache_mr_locked(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent)
>  {
>  	struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr;
>  
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ent->lock);
> -	if (list_empty(&ent->head))
> +	if (!ent->stored)
>  		return;
> -	mr = list_first_entry(&ent->head, struct mlx5_ib_mr, list);
> -	list_del(&mr->list);
> -	ent->available_mrs--;

> +	mr = __xa_store(&ent->mkeys, --ent->stored, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	WARN_ON(mr == NULL || xa_is_err(mr));

Add a if (reserved != stored)  before the below?

> +	WARN_ON(__xa_erase(&ent->mkeys, --ent->reserved) != NULL);

Also please avoid writing WARN_ON(something with side effects)

  old = __xa_erase(&ent->mkeys, --ent->reserved);
  WARN_ON(old != NULL);

Same for all places

>  static int resize_available_mrs(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent, unsigned int target,
>  				bool limit_fill)
> +	 __acquires(&ent->lock) __releases(&ent->lock)

Why?

>  {
>  	int err;
>  
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ent->lock);
> -

Why?

>  static void clean_keys(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, int c)
>  {
>  	struct mlx5_mr_cache *cache = &dev->cache;
>  	struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent = &cache->ent[c];
> -	struct mlx5_ib_mr *tmp_mr;
>  	struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr;
> -	LIST_HEAD(del_list);
> +	unsigned long index;
>  
>  	cancel_delayed_work(&ent->dwork);
> -	while (1) {
> -		spin_lock_irq(&ent->lock);
> -		if (list_empty(&ent->head)) {
> -			spin_unlock_irq(&ent->lock);
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		mr = list_first_entry(&ent->head, struct mlx5_ib_mr, list);
> -		list_move(&mr->list, &del_list);
> -		ent->available_mrs--;
> +	xa_for_each(&ent->mkeys, index, mr) {

This isn't quite the same thing, the above tolerates concurrent add,
this does not.

It should be more like

while (ent->stored) {
   mr = __xa_erase(stored--);

> @@ -1886,6 +1901,17 @@ mlx5_free_priv_descs(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static int push_reserve_mkey(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	xa_lock_irq(&ent->mkeys);
> +	ret = _push_reserve_mkey(ent);
> +	xa_unlock_irq(&ent->mkeys);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

Put this close to _push_reserve_mkey() please

Jason