Message-ID: <Yw6g7G4jvXaoBORm@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:44:44 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] mm/gup: use gup_can_follow_protnone() also in
 GUP-fast

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:23:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @@ -2997,6 +2997,11 @@ static inline bool gup_must_unshare(unsigned int flags, struct page *page)
>  	 */
>  	if (!PageAnon(page))
>  		return false;
> +
> +	/* See page_try_share_anon_rmap() for GUP-fast details. */
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) && irqs_disabled())
> +		smp_rmb();
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Note that PageKsm() pages cannot be exclusive, and consequently,
>  	 * cannot get pinned.
> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
> index bf80adca980b..454c159f2aae 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static inline int page_try_dup_anon_rmap(struct page *page, bool compound,
>   * @page: the exclusive anonymous page to try marking possibly shared
>   *
>   * The caller needs to hold the PT lock and has to have the page table entry
> - * cleared/invalidated+flushed, to properly sync against GUP-fast.
> + * cleared/invalidated.
>   *
>   * This is similar to page_try_dup_anon_rmap(), however, not used during fork()
>   * to duplicate a mapping, but instead to prepare for KSM or temporarily
> @@ -283,12 +283,60 @@ static inline int page_try_share_anon_rmap(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageAnon(page) || !PageAnonExclusive(page), page);
>  
> -	/* See page_try_dup_anon_rmap(). */
> -	if (likely(!is_device_private_page(page) &&
> -	    unlikely(page_maybe_dma_pinned(page))))
> -		return -EBUSY;
> +	/* device private pages cannot get pinned via GUP. */
> +	if (unlikely(is_device_private_page(page))) {
> +		ClearPageAnonExclusive(page);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * We have to make sure that while we clear PageAnonExclusive, that
> +	 * the page is not pinned and that concurrent GUP-fast won't succeed in
> +	 * concurrently pinning the page.
> +	 *
> +	 * Conceptually, GUP-fast pinning code of anon pages consists of:
> +	 * (1) Read the PTE
> +	 * (2) Pin the mapped page
> +	 * (3) Check if the PTE changed by re-reading it; back off if so.
> +	 * (4) Check if PageAnonExclusive is not set; back off if so.
> +	 *
> +	 * Conceptually, PageAnonExclusive clearing code consists of:
> +	 * (1) Clear PTE
> +	 * (2) Check if the page is pinned; back off if so.
> +	 * (3) Clear PageAnonExclusive
> +	 * (4) Restore PTE (optional)
> +	 *
> +	 * In GUP-fast, we have to make sure that (2),(3) and (4) happen in
> +	 * the right order. Memory order between (2) and (3) is handled by
> +	 * GUP-fast, independent of PageAnonExclusive.
> +	 *
> +	 * When clearing PageAnonExclusive(), we have to make sure that (1),
> +	 * (2), (3) and (4) happen in the right order.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note that (4) has to happen after (3) in both cases to handle the
> +	 * corner case whereby the PTE is restored to the original value after
> +	 * clearing PageAnonExclusive and while GUP-fast might not detect the
> +	 * PTE change, it will detect the PageAnonExclusive change.
> +	 *
> +	 * We assume that there might not be a memory barrier after
> +	 * clearing/invalidating the PTE (1) and before restoring the PTE (4),
> +	 * so we use explicit ones here.
> +	 *
> +	 * These memory barriers are paired with memory barriers in GUP-fast
> +	 * code, including gup_must_unshare().
> +	 */
> +
> +	/* Clear/invalidate the PTE before checking for PINs. */
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP))
> +		smp_mb();
> +
> +	if (unlikely(page_maybe_dma_pinned(page)))
> +		return -EBUSY;

It is usually a bad sign to see an attempt to create a "read release"..

>  	ClearPageAnonExclusive(page);
> +
> +	/* Clear PageAnonExclusive() before eventually restoring the PTE. */
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP))
> +		smp_mb__after_atomic();
>  	return 0;
>  }

I don't know enough about the memory model to say if this is OK..

Generally, I've never seen an algorithm be successfull with these
kinds of multi-atomic gyrations.

If we break it down a bit, and replace the 'read release' with an
actual atomic for discussion:


       CPU0                  CPU1
                            clear pte 
                            incr_return ref // release & acquire
 add_ref // acquire

This seems OK, if CPU1 views !dma then CPU0 must view clear pte due to
the atomic's release/acquire semantic

If CPU1 views dma then it just exits


Now the second phase:

       CPU0                  CPU1
                            clear anon_exclusive
                            restore pte // release

 read_pte // acquire
 read anon_exclusive 

If CPU0 observes the restored PTE then it must observe the cleared
anon_exclusive

Otherwise CPU0 must observe the cleared PTE.

So, maybe I could convince myself it is OK, but I think your placement
of barriers is confusing as to what data the barrier is actually
linked to.

We are using a barrier around the ref - acquire on the CPU0 and full
barier on the CPU1 (eg atomic_read(); smb_mb_after_atomic() )

The second phase uses a smp_store_release/load_acquire on the PTE.

It is the same barriers you sketched but integrated with the data they
are ordering.

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists