Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary

From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:09:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH2dDRBXJcbUcbLi@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a7670e4-94c0-9f35-74de-a7d5b1504ced@redhat.com>

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.

Ugh, the count approach is nearly identical to Ben's original code.  Using a
rwsem seemed so clever :-/

> IIUC this could be extended to non-sleeping invalidations too, but I
> am not really sure about that.

Yes, that should be fine.

> 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

If using spinlock_t is problematic, wouldn't mmu_lock already be an issue?  Or
am I misunderstanding your concern?

> - 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.

The one concern I had with an unfair mechanism of this nature is that, in theory,
the memslot update could be blocked indefinitely.

> 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.

I think delaying it makes sense.

> @@ -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.

How on earth did you decipher that from the splat?  I stared at it for a good
five minutes and was completely befuddled.

> +	 */
> +	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);
> 