Message-ID: <60bbe75b-8dd1-3c46-2f8f-c2407493ffb8@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:15:16 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "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 30.08.22 21:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:53:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.08.22 20:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:23:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> ... and looking into the details of TLB flush and GUP-fast interaction
>>>> nowadays, that case is no longer relevant. A TLB flush is no longer
>>>> sufficient to stop concurrent GUP-fast ever since we introduced generic
>>>> RCU GUP-fast.
>>>
>>> Yes, we've had RCU GUP fast for a while, and it is more widely used
>>> now, IIRC.
>>>
>>> It has been a bit, but if I remember, GUP fast in RCU mode worked on a
>>> few principles:
>>>
>>>  - The PTE page must not be freed without RCU
>>>  - The PTE page content must be convertable to a struct page using the
>>>    usual rules (eg PTE Special)
>>>  - That struct page refcount may go from 0->1 inside the RCU
>>>  - In the case the refcount goes from 0->1 there must be sufficient
>>>    barriers such that GUP fast observing the refcount of 1 will also
>>>    observe the PTE entry has changed. ie before the refcount is
>>>    dropped in the zap it has to clear the PTE entry, the refcount
>>>    decr has to be a 'release' and the refcount incr in gup fast has be
>>>    to be an 'acquire'.
>>>  - The rest of the system must tolerate speculative refcount
>>>    increments from GUP on any random page
>>>> The basic idea being that if GUP fast obtains a valid reference on a
>>> page *and* the PTE entry has not changed then everything is fine.
>>>
>>> The tricks with TLB invalidation are just a "poor mans" RCU, and
>>> arguably these days aren't really needed since I think we could make
>>> everything use real RCU always without penalty if we really wanted.
>>>
>>> Today we can create a unique 'struct pagetable_page' as Matthew has
>>> been doing in other places that guarentees a rcu_head is always
>>> available for every page used in a page table. Using that we could
>>> drop the code in the TLB flusher that allocates memory for the
>>> rcu_head and hopes for the best. (Or even is the common struct page
>>> rcu_head already guarenteed to exist for pagetable pages now a days?)
>>>
>>> IMHO that is the main reason we still have the non-RCU mode at all..
>>
>>
>> Good, I managed to attract the attention of someone who understands that machinery :)
>>
>> While validating whether GUP-fast and PageAnonExclusive code work correctly,
>> I started looking at the whole RCU GUP-fast machinery. I do have a patch to
>> improve PageAnonExclusive clearing (I think we're missing memory barriers to
>> make it work as expected in any possible case), but I also stumbled eventually
>> over a more generic issue that might need memory barriers.
>>
>> Any thoughts whether I am missing something or this is actually missing
>> memory barriers?
> 
> I don't like the use of smb_mb very much, I deliberately choose the
> more modern language of release/acquire because it makes it a lot
> clearer what barriers are doing..
> 
> So, if we dig into it, using what I said above, the atomic refcount is:
> 
> gup_pte_range()
>   try_grab_folio()
>    try_get_folio()
>     folio_ref_try_add_rcu()
>      folio_ref_add_unless()
>        page_ref_add_unless()
>         atomic_add_unless()

Right, that seems to work as expected for checking the refcount after
clearing the PTE.

Unfortunately, it's not sufficien to identify whether a page may be
pinned, because the flow continues as

folio = try_get_folio(page, refs)
...
if (folio_test_large(folio))
	atomic_add(refs, folio_pincount_ptr(folio));
else
	folio_ref_add(folio, ...)

So I guess we'd need a smb_mb() before re-checking the PTE for that case.

> 
> So that wants to be an acquire
> 
> The pairing release is in the page table code that does the put_page,
> it wants to be an atomic_dec_return() as a release.
> 
> Now, we go and look at Documentation/atomic_t.txt to try to understand
> what are the ordering semantics of the atomics we are using and become
> dazed-confused like me:

I read that 3 times and got dizzy. Thanks for double-checking, very much
appreciated!

> 
>  ORDERING  (go read memory-barriers.txt first)
>  --------
> 
>   - RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered;
> 
>   - RMW operations that are conditional are unordered on FAILURE,
>     otherwise the above rules apply.
> 
>  Fully ordered primitives are ordered against everything prior and everything
>  subsequent. Therefore a fully ordered primitive is like having an smp_mb()
>  before and an smp_mb() after the primitive.
> 
> So, I take that to mean that both atomic_add_unless() and
> atomic_dec_return() are "fully ordered" and "fully ordered" is a super
> set of acquire/release.
> 
> Thus, we already have the necessary barriers integrated into the
> atomic being used.
> 
> The smb_mb_after_atomic stuff is to be used with atomics that don't
> return values, there are some examples in the doc

Yes, I missed the point that RMW operations that return a value are
fully ordered and imply smp_mb() before / after.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists