Message-ID: <088593ea-e001-fa87-909f-a196b1373ca4@suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:58:34 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        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>
Cc:     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 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 ..." ?

> +	 * 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().

> +
> +		/*
> +		 * 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?

> +
>  		arch_accept_memory(phys_start, phys_end);
> +
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
>  		bitmap_clear(unaccepted->bitmap, range_start, len);
>  	}
> +
> +	list_del(&range.list);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
>  }
>  

Powered by blists - more mailing lists