Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:11:46 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
        khalid.elmously@...onical.com, philip.cox@...onical.com,
        aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/unaccepted: Fix soft lockups caused by parallel
 memory acceptance

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/14/23 22:40, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Michael reported soft lockups on a system that has unaccepted memory.
> > This occurs when a user attempts to allocate and accept memory on
> > multiple CPUs simultaneously.
> > 
> > The root cause of the issue is that memory acceptance is serialized with
> > a spinlock, allowing only one CPU to accept memory at a time. The other
> > CPUs spin and wait for their turn, leading to starvation and soft lockup
> > reports.
> > 
> > To address this, the code has been modified to release the spinlock
> > while accepting memory. This allows for parallel memory acceptance on
> > multiple CPUs.
> > 
> > A newly introduced "accepting_list" keeps track of which memory is
> > currently being accepted. This is necessary to prevent parallel
> > acceptance of the same memory block. If a collision occurs, the lock is
> > released and the process is retried.
> > 
> > Such collisions should rarely occur. The main path for memory acceptance
> > is the page allocator, which accepts memory in MAX_ORDER chunks. As long
> > as MAX_ORDER is equal to or larger than the unit_size, collisions will
> > never occur because the caller fully owns the memory block being
> > accepted.
> > 
> > Aside from the page allocator, only memblock and deferered_free_range()
> > accept memory, but this only happens during boot.
> > 
> > The code has been tested with unit_size == 128MiB to trigger collisions
> > and validate the retry codepath.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Reported-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com
> > Fixes: 2053bc57f367 ("efi: Add unaccepted memory support")
> > Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
> > index 853f7dc3c21d..8af0306c8e5c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
> > @@ -5,9 +5,17 @@
> >  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >  #include <asm/unaccepted_memory.h>
> >  
> > -/* Protects unaccepted memory bitmap */
> > +/* Protects unaccepted memory bitmap and accepting_list */
> >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(unaccepted_memory_lock);
> >  
> > +struct accept_range {
> > +	struct list_head list;
> > +	unsigned long start;
> > +	unsigned long end;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static LIST_HEAD(accepting_list);
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * accept_memory() -- Consult bitmap and accept the memory if needed.
> >   *
> > @@ -24,6 +32,7 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> >  {
> >  	struct efi_unaccepted_memory *unaccepted;
> >  	unsigned long range_start, range_end;
> > +	struct accept_range range, *entry;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	u64 unit_size;
> >  
> > @@ -78,20 +87,58 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> >  	if (end > unaccepted->size * unit_size * BITS_PER_BYTE)
> >  		end = unaccepted->size * unit_size * BITS_PER_BYTE;
> >  
> > -	range_start = start / unit_size;
> > -
> > +	range.start = start / unit_size;
> > +	range.end = DIV_ROUND_UP(end, unit_size);
> > +retry:
> >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Check if anybody works on accepting the same range of the memory.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * The check with unit_size granularity. It is crucial to catch all
> 
> "The check is done ..." ?

Yep.

> > +	 * accept requests to the same unit_size block, even if they don't
> > +	 * overlap on physical address level.
> > +	 */
> > +	list_for_each_entry(entry, &accepting_list, list) {
> > +		if (entry->end < range.start)
> > +			continue;
> > +		if (entry->start >= range.end)
> > +			continue;
> 
> Hmm we really don't have a macro for ranges_intersect()? Given how easy is
> to make a mistake. I found only zone_intersects().

I don't know any.

> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Somebody else accepting the range. Or at least part of it.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * Drop the lock and retry until it is complete.
> > +		 */
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
> > +		cond_resched();
> > +		goto retry;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Register that the range is about to be accepted.
> > +	 * Make sure nobody else will accept it.
> > +	 */
> > +	list_add(&range.list, &accepting_list);
> > +
> > +	range_start = range.start;
> >  	for_each_set_bitrange_from(range_start, range_end, unaccepted->bitmap,
> > -				   DIV_ROUND_UP(end, unit_size)) {
> > +				   range.end) {
> >  		unsigned long phys_start, phys_end;
> >  		unsigned long len = range_end - range_start;
> >  
> >  		phys_start = range_start * unit_size + unaccepted->phys_base;
> >  		phys_end = range_end * unit_size + unaccepted->phys_base;
> >  
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
> 
> Hm so this is bad, AFAICS. We enable IRQs, then an IRQ can come and try to
> accept in the same unit_size block, so it will keep the retrying by the goto
> above and itself have irqs disabled so the cond_resched() will never let us
> finish?

Good catch. Will fix in the next version.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists