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=-17.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,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 5B73BC433B4 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0CA61244 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:35:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EF0CA61244 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1AFC96B006E; Mon, 3 May 2021 07:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 15FCA6B0070; Mon, 3 May 2021 07:35:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id F1B626B0071; Mon, 3 May 2021 07:35:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0103.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.103]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FBD6B006E for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 07:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EE52C32 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:35:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78099715470.07.FD40C81 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86027C0007CE for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:35:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620041754; 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=WqkM0iWGl6jrVU5KuvimVV9SZx4Jlvp1gEzxVMJa670=; b=Znfu+wCqovV7p+O5sJ0a8DXfegTxLu31vLAzTj6nEBNCCeCWVhLThti5ujRrWZi7eQLqpG wKkDShR8smZU6iPT1G7OVQhdnfLGELNDAJGUQEVk3NKcDyNqumaWIH+/GXP/5JDTFgPDAB iyNZpwlrFe21d0CIGI6mDWJ4J3IAEIs= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-594-8RUvWGAzOtStK6JfI8vZ8w-1; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:35:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8RUvWGAzOtStK6JfI8vZ8w-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 91-20020adf94640000b029010b019075afso3745807wrq.17 for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 04:35:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WqkM0iWGl6jrVU5KuvimVV9SZx4Jlvp1gEzxVMJa670=; b=Etpy8H+AQfbRnGb0od6mbMQnuoEQLBu6x4z06U1OnGphRr7js/eal7XEJ+zef706sU vU040O8YllSB9RL10jMvF6csbgjXMTvudpQciBMhwEwOv6Pk9gSyd/Ia66zoY58kpmGA AVZhGKz0YegYTPq1sFlAtrMYg69wFUnmDFVy4MmMt3oXb+GcnJqbneXWmro4L4NLsUSY n1kga21XZ5s6TR9BEnE5sddGXtEBF0SMCU0g9ujobiDWJBUDYocsv6/NarxyjJQqEH14 p1Xh50VNFwhkUqj2u2EwYWDk0uga9tbGFROMpp+gcuMwhZ5oWWvKt/mrALJkFepxA1zV HlpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533k/WwShuuGOcSTsZ/Mw39y+d7J3zwpQ47bCEoWi6GiUc3JDT8j ltrydqwr0CMvRdzuS3/eyLwUMZfZGnIfFW8YCLs5VKOLo1mc23yoMm4zpKysmGrBSRNIoJIMQjW 2KnFCR24IOjpVKXM7eTPXCyUJNLtGdO6GRgQDHnwo3ZCE7C8OCmsLCZp3E0U= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c0c4:: with SMTP id s4mr31118945wmh.174.1620041751346; Mon, 03 May 2021 04:35:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3tS70mbovvf2isVdRqtaSYaIPZB8VFAoB+G6yadE6t3QI++fiJfnblhR/UYdS8ZB2jp2nag== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c0c4:: with SMTP id s4mr31118895wmh.174.1620041750887; Mon, 03 May 2021 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c649f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.100.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l12sm11919551wrm.76.2021.05.03.04.35.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 May 2021 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] fs/proc/kcore: use page_offline_(freeze|unfreeze) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Alexey Dobriyan , "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" , Oscar Salvador , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Alex Shi , Steven Price , Mike Kravetz , Aili Yao , Jiri Bohac , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Wei Liu , Naoya Horiguchi , linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20210429122519.15183-1-david@redhat.com> <20210429122519.15183-8-david@redhat.com> <5a5a7552-4f0a-75bc-582f-73d24afcf57b@redhat.com> <2f66cbfc-aa29-b3ef-4c6a-0da8b29b56f6@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 13:35:49 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Znfu+wCq; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.133.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 86027C0007CE X-Stat-Signature: bcfaxykzssi9i8zaphkpecem6qig195s Received-SPF: none (redhat.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf03; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com; client-ip=170.10.133.124 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1620041748-616300 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 03.05.21 13:33, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:13:45PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 03.05.21 11:28, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:28:36AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 02.05.21 08:34, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:25:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> Let's properly synchronize with drivers that set PageOffline(). Unfreeze >>>>>> every now and then, so drivers that want to set PageOffline() can make >>>>>> progress. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/proc/kcore.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c >>>>>> index 92ff1e4436cb..3d7531f47389 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/proc/kcore.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c >>>>>> @@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static void append_kcore_note(char *notes, size_t *i, const char *name, >>>>>> static ssize_t >>>>>> read_kcore(struct file *file, char __user *buffer, size_t buflen, loff_t *fpos) >>>>>> { >>>>>> + size_t page_offline_frozen = 0; >>>>>> char *buf = file->private_data; >>>>>> size_t phdrs_offset, notes_offset, data_offset; >>>>>> size_t phdrs_len, notes_len; >>>>>> @@ -509,6 +510,18 @@ read_kcore(struct file *file, char __user *buffer, size_t buflen, loff_t *fpos) >>>>>> pfn = __pa(start) >> PAGE_SHIFT; >>>>>> page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn); >>>>> >>>>> Can't this race with page offlining for the first time we get here? >>>> >>>> >>>> To clarify, we have three types of offline pages in the kernel ... >>>> >>>> a) Pages part of an offline memory section; the memap is stale and not >>>> trustworthy. pfn_to_online_page() checks that. We *can* protect against >>>> memory offlining using get_online_mems()/put_online_mems(), but usually >>>> avoid doing so as the race window is very small (and a problem all over the >>>> kernel we basically never hit) and locking is rather expensive. In the >>>> future, we might switch to rcu to handle that more efficiently and avoiding >>>> these possible races. >>>> >>>> b) PageOffline(): logically offline pages contained in an online memory >>>> section with a sane memmap. virtio-mem calls these pages "fake offline"; >>>> something like a "temporary" memory hole. The new mechanism I propose will >>>> be used to handle synchronization as races can be more severe, e.g., when >>>> reading actual page content here. >>>> >>>> c) Soft offline pages: hwpoisoned pages that are not actually harmful yet, >>>> but could become harmful in the future. So we better try to remove the page >>>> from the page allcoator and try to migrate away existing users. >>>> >>>> >>>> So page_offline_* handle "b) PageOffline()" only. There is a tiny race >>>> between pfn_to_online_page(pfn) and looking at the memmap as we have in many >>>> cases already throughout the kernel, to be tackled in the future. >>> >>> Right, but here you anyway add locking, so why exclude the first iteration? >> >> What we're protecting is PageOffline() below. If I didn't mess up, we should >> always be calling page_offline_freeze() before calling PageOffline(). Or am >> I missing something? > > Somehow I was under impression we are protecting both pfn_to_online_page() > and PageOffline(). > >>> BTW, did you consider something like >> >> Yes, I played with something like that. We'd have to handle the first >> page_offline_freeze() freeze differently, though, and that's where things >> got a bit ugly in my attempts. >> >>> >>> if (page_offline_frozen++ % MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES == 0) { >>> page_offline_unfreeze(); >>> cond_resched(); >>> page_offline_freeze(); >>> } >>> >>> We don't seem to care about page_offline_frozen overflows here, do we? >> >> No, the buffer size is also size_t and gets incremented on a per-byte basis. >> The variant I have right now looked the cleanest to me. Happy to hear >> simpler alternatives. > > Well, locking for the first time before the while() loop and doing > resched-relock outside switch() would be definitely nicer, and it makes the > last unlock unconditional. > > The cost of prevention of memory offline during reads of !KCORE_RAM parts > does not seem that significant to me, but I may be missing something. Also true, I'll have a look if I can just simplify that. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb