[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAhV-H6vXMr5bviGoE1pojVswOkUWBkv9hOS4Jd-6Exb+G+1+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:18:29 +0800
From: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To: maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn>, Rui Wang <wangrui@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add memory barrier before update
pmd entry
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:21 AM maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/6/24 上午9:56, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 9:37 AM maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2024/6/23 下午6:18, Huacai Chen wrote:
> >>> Hi, Bibo,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 4:09 PM Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> When updating pmd entry such as allocating new pmd page or splitting
> >>>> huge page into normal page, it is necessary to firstly update all pte
> >>>> entries, and then update pmd entry.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is weak order with LoongArch system, there will be problem if other
> >>>> vcpus sees pmd update firstly however pte is not updated. Here smp_wmb()
> >>>> is added to assure this.
> >>> Memory barriers should be in pairs in most cases. That means you may
> >>> lose smp_rmb() in another place.
> >> The idea adding smp_wmb() comes from function __split_huge_pmd_locked()
> >> in file mm/huge_memory.c, and the explanation is reasonable.
> >>
> >> ...
> >> set_ptes(mm, haddr, pte, entry, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
> >> }
> >> ...
> >> smp_wmb(); /* make pte visible before pmd */
> >> pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pgtable);
> >>
> >> It is strange that why smp_rmb() should be in pairs with smp_wmb(),
> >> I never hear this rule -:(
> > https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/wrappers/memory-barriers.html
> >
> > SMP BARRIER PAIRING
> > -------------------
> >
> > When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
> > always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> =============== ===============
> WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> <write barrier>
> WRITE_ONCE(b, 2); x = READ_ONCE(b);
> <read barrier>
> y = READ_ONCE(a);
>
> With split_huge scenery to update pte/pmd entry, there is no strong
> relationship between address ptex and pmd.
> CPU1
> WRITE_ONCE(pte0, 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(pte511, 1);
> <write barrier>
> WRITE_ONCE(pmd, 2);
>
> However with page table walk scenery, address ptep depends on the
> contents of pmd, so it is not necessary to add smp_rmb().
> ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, address, &ptl);
> if (!ptep)
> return no_page_table(vma, flags, address);
> pte = ptep_get(ptep);
> if (!pte_present(pte))
>
> It is just my option, or do you think where smp_rmb() barrier should be
> added in page table reader path?
There are some possibilities:
1. Read barrier is missing in some places;
2. Write barrier is also unnecessary here;
3. Read barrier is really unnecessary, but there is a better API to
replace the write barrier;
4. Read barrier is really unnecessary, and write barrier is really the
best API here.
Maybe Rui Wang knows better here.
Huacai
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
> >
> >
> > Huacai
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Bibo Mao
> >>>
> >>> Huacai
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/loongarch/kvm/mmu.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> index 1690828bd44b..7f04edfbe428 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ static kvm_pte_t *kvm_populate_gpa(struct kvm *kvm,
> >>>>
> >>>> child = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(cache);
> >>>> _kvm_pte_init(child, ctx.invalid_ptes[ctx.level - 1]);
> >>>> + smp_wmb(); /* make pte visible before pmd */
> >>>> kvm_set_pte(entry, __pa(child));
> >>>> } else if (kvm_pte_huge(*entry)) {
> >>>> return entry;
> >>>> @@ -746,6 +747,7 @@ static kvm_pte_t *kvm_split_huge(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, kvm_pte_t *ptep, gfn_t g
> >>>> val += PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + smp_wmb();
> >>>> /* The later kvm_flush_tlb_gpa() will flush hugepage tlb */
> >>>> kvm_set_pte(ptep, __pa(child));
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.39.3
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists