From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA509C433ED for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8303B61078 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239999AbhDSNvJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:51:09 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:52523 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238497AbhDSNvD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:51:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618840232; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3mWWrs07VeyhsaVD9xqLJ/6yk16w935A3cPLp1luCFU=; b=TQg8BjeU2vk6nJry0VFpLp+Am/XdkDw7LRTgmH1InELs+3wCj96PVA3WE6Xzkq8O1pq2GJ 8HvtLdsYKwIYqP5O8NMulRv3CQ9DyYF56oZfSiS82oIhpdxIRSpvAnnhkQJYXzE9dFEtfS ZXysa0Vyg/Ywgf/NnuNjowUfDLMXBOE= Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-557-zZOgVYzgP5yjVO7wnAuTng-1; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:50:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zZOgVYzgP5yjVO7wnAuTng-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id h13-20020a05640250cdb02903790a9c55acso11207858edb.4 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:references:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3mWWrs07VeyhsaVD9xqLJ/6yk16w935A3cPLp1luCFU=; b=CrjfoAL+hc/HzmjrxpOfrPnUmvJSeuLCYg1OWN5UJlwaavtEP9lN6nrmW4is93rBwD vs7nvHrK5+gBVAYx35yDTdx75okDTkoU1GvlGdpaCWiY99+EzYfQ+MOcOf76fT7oaCvN wShRA57Kiol2TIJhr3gTbY1vG7mp9A8+NA01Ww4bmPcKWDPl8i8y8EdpDc8tHEGA/XqR 2uc6WFZoUczL4qXkGsfTDHU22tS5p6syarARnz2cMq4/zOlhVD718XCVz5nwDu6cPuOJ 3sbnXUfiap5kekZg2tZancaWMMAcntbV+waByqvEv66sZj8/rqP7NgVDZ4IWxIMR1DJg f27g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BFkHyBZZa5ND0p1RGkeu13ciTItHy5lV0csuHzB5wSLOBbGDF Y0/Y6Rt+/KWd0F9s9O75xwDicELvlTIXW/Nt1lMVh6qpuTbmIJ3e+pDxf5A2HtTdCoCaVd9dpLU Vu/76jrWfi3s9 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2794:: with SMTP id b20mr8093108ede.48.1618840227377; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQCaelkV2XL8Vc+Z3L0QFp3k/2BYZeNmoNVKV3upxEGfeYl9ST9RLvoIxzfo1AcRAtj73fWA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2794:: with SMTP id b20mr8093080ede.48.1618840227102; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 16sm10597529ejw.0.2021.04.19.06.50.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:50:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Wanpeng Li , Sean Christopherson Cc: Marc Zyngier , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , kvm , LKML , Ben Gardon References: <20210402005658.3024832-1-seanjc@google.com> <20210402005658.3024832-10-seanjc@google.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary Message-ID: <2a7670e4-94c0-9f35-74de-a7d5b1504ced@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:50:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 19/04/21 10:49, Wanpeng Li wrote: > I saw this splatting: > > ====================================================== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.12.0-rc3+ #6 Tainted: G OE > ------------------------------------------------------ > qemu-system-x86/3069 is trying to acquire lock: > ffffffff9c775ca0 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}, > at: __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x5/0x190 > > but task is already holding lock: > ffffaff7410a9160 (&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: > kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x36d/0x4f0 [kvm] I guess it is possible to open-code the wait using a readers count and a spinlock (see patch after signature). This allows including the rcu_assign_pointer in the same critical section that checks the number of readers. Also on the plus side, the init_rwsem() is replaced by slightly nicer code. IIUC this could be extended to non-sleeping invalidations too, but I am not really sure about that. There are some issues with the patch though: - I am not sure if this should be a raw spin lock to avoid the same issue on PREEMPT_RT kernel. That said the critical section is so tiny that using a raw spin lock may make sense anyway - this loses the rwsem fairness. On the other hand, mm/mmu_notifier.c's own interval-tree-based filter is also using a similar mechanism that is likewise not fair, so it should be okay. Any opinions? For now I placed the change below in kvm/queue, but I'm leaning towards delaying this optimization to the next merge window. Paolo diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst index 8f5d5bcf5689..e628f48dfdda 100644 --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst @@ -16,12 +16,11 @@ The acquisition orders for mutexes are as follows: - kvm->slots_lock is taken outside kvm->irq_lock, though acquiring them together is quite rare. -- The kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock rwsem ensures that pairs of +- kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count ensures that pairs of invalidate_range_start() and invalidate_range_end() callbacks - use the same memslots array. kvm->slots_lock is taken outside the - write-side critical section of kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock, so - MMU notifiers must not take kvm->slots_lock. No other write-side - critical sections should be added. + use the same memslots array. kvm->slots_lock is taken on the + waiting side in install_new_memslots, so MMU notifiers must not + take kvm->slots_lock. On x86: diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index 76b340dd6981..44a4a0c5148a 100644 --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h @@ -472,11 +472,15 @@ struct kvm { #endif /* KVM_HAVE_MMU_RWLOCK */ struct mutex slots_lock; - struct rw_semaphore mmu_notifier_slots_lock; struct mm_struct *mm; /* userspace tied to this vm */ struct kvm_memslots __rcu *memslots[KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM]; struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS]; + /* Used to wait for completion of MMU notifiers. */ + spinlock_t mn_invalidate_lock; + unsigned long mn_active_invalidate_count; + struct rcuwait mn_memslots_update_rcuwait; + /* * created_vcpus is protected by kvm->lock, and is incremented * at the beginning of KVM_CREATE_VCPU. online_vcpus is only @@ -662,7 +666,7 @@ static inline struct kvm_memslots *__kvm_memslots(struct kvm *kvm, int as_id) as_id = array_index_nospec(as_id, KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM); return srcu_dereference_check(kvm->memslots[as_id], &kvm->srcu, lockdep_is_held(&kvm->slots_lock) || - lockdep_is_held(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock) || + READ_ONCE(kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count) || !refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)); } diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index ff9e95eb6960..cdaa1841e725 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct mmu_notifier *mn, * otherwise, mmu_notifier_count is incremented unconditionally. */ if (!kvm->mmu_notifier_count) { - lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + WARN_ON(!READ_ONCE(kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count)); return; } @@ -689,10 +689,13 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn, * The complexity required to handle conditional locking for this case * is not worth the marginal benefits, the VM is likely doomed anyways. * - * Pairs with the up_read in range_end(). + * Pairs with the decrement in range_end(). */ - if (blockable) - down_read(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + if (blockable) { + spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count++; + spin_unlock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + } __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range); @@ -735,9 +738,20 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn, __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range); - /* Pairs with the down_read in range_start(). */ - if (blockable) - up_read(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + /* Pairs with the increment in range_start(). */ + if (blockable) { + bool wake; + spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + wake = (--kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count == 0); + spin_unlock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + + /* + * There can only be one waiter, since the wait happens under + * slots_lock. + */ + if (wake) + rcuwait_wake_up(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait); + } BUG_ON(kvm->mmu_notifier_count < 0); } @@ -951,7 +965,9 @@ static struct kvm *kvm_create_vm(unsigned long type) mutex_init(&kvm->lock); mutex_init(&kvm->irq_lock); mutex_init(&kvm->slots_lock); - init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + spin_lock_init(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + rcuwait_init(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->devices); BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM > SHRT_MAX); @@ -1073,15 +1089,17 @@ static void kvm_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm) #if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) mmu_notifier_unregister(&kvm->mmu_notifier, kvm->mm); /* - * Reset the lock used to prevent memslot updates between MMU notifier - * invalidate_range_start() and invalidate_range_end(). At this point, - * no more MMU notifiers will run and pending calls to ...start() have - * completed. But, the lock could still be held if KVM's notifier was - * removed between ...start() and ...end(). No threads can be waiting - * on the lock as the last reference on KVM has been dropped. If the - * lock is still held, freeing memslots will deadlock. + * At this point, pending calls to invalidate_range_start() + * have completed but no more MMU notifiers will run, so + * mn_active_invalidate_count may remain unbalanced. + * No threads can be waiting in install_new_memslots as the + * last reference on KVM has been dropped, but freeing + * memslots will deadlock without manual intervention. */ - init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count = 0; + WARN_ON(rcuwait_active(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait)); + spin_unlock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); #else kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm); #endif @@ -1333,9 +1351,22 @@ static struct kvm_memslots *install_new_memslots(struct kvm *kvm, WARN_ON(gen & KVM_MEMSLOT_GEN_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS); slots->generation = gen | KVM_MEMSLOT_GEN_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS; - down_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + /* + * This cannot be an rwsem because the MMU notifier must not run + * inside the critical section. A sleeping rwsem cannot exclude + * that. + */ + spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + prepare_to_rcuwait(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait); + while (kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count) { + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); + spin_unlock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + schedule(); + spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); + } + finish_rcuwait(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait); rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots); - up_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); + spin_unlock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock); synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);