Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable: Uses counting method to skip serializing

From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>,
	Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@linux.ibm.com>,
	Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable: Uses counting method to skip serializing
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:28:41 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <24863d8904c6e05e5dd48cab57db4274675ae654.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b39eaa7-751d-40bc-d3d7-41aaa15be42a@nvidia.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 13:11 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/20/19 12:50 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Skips slow part of serialize_against_pte_lookup if there is no running
> > lockless pagetable walk.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > index 13239b17a22c..41ca30269fa3 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ static void do_nothing(void *unused)
> >  void serialize_against_pte_lookup(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  {
> >  	smp_mb();
> > -	smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> > +	if (running_lockless_pgtbl_walk(mm))
> > +		smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you do this, then you are left without any synchronization. So it will
> have race conditions: a page table walk could begin right after the above
> check returns "false", and then code such as hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clear()
> will continue on right away, under the false assumption that it has let
> all the current page table walks complete.
> 
> The current code uses either interrupts or RCU to synchronize, and in
> either case, you end up scheduling something on each CPU. If you remove
> that entirely, I don't see anything left. ("Pure" atomic counting is not
> a synchronization technique all by itself.)
> 
> thanks,

Hello John,
Thanks for the fast feedback.

See, before calling serialize_against_pte_lookup(), there is always an
update or clear on the pmd. So, if a page table walk begin right after
the check returns "false", there is no problem, since it will use the
updated pmd.

Think about serialize, on a process with a bunch of cpus. After you
check the last processor (wait part), there is no guarantee that the
first one is not starting a lockless pagetable walk.

The same mechanism protect both methods.

Does it make sense?

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]