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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 DED68C433FF for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECEE216C8 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387556AbfG2Oot (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:44:49 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com ([209.85.160.193]:37591 "EHLO mail-qt1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387396AbfG2Oot (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:44:49 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id y26so59909088qto.4 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:44:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=DoNqX8RWU8p5wa0hRf4mpfQk5+CoY4k3BggOB+rTukY=; b=nj3rqafssPRHQbS9P5hE5crKh08WvGmYnQKdvV91PafCGHO+qUCH6eKH1KsiURb1S+ 0SmvUSsUvFOlC4l8lXUChbdI86RiOZcOYRfO3Jx7JNmCdkVe6fism38RI9gPJv/aOq6B wYA4FI2ZgS9RsLVrRo95NnYOjFcG1xtqbfhDha336/AFEs7SrTdxMc3veaVxGlS4N/Sn mIgRgWvIHhOF25kfzTGyodXDA/I8LEfBjgQgLrGgCGp0HRXL0ytiAFR2QwM8hQIJvti2 Y1ZkziNeV5txKv15lDhPQn2PW86+iVfOFz2ycUslGXJaGS518rbeZEnX2WPHB9i1hXZS tT+g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU2aclsEhoJrjC+/3RxQlMB03m8ZfH7FioAU/0+3CgkZqtcE1p7 7pK8nUrn8UgkU43Ux7V+T8Fb5Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzNcK5rFMdgsRbkuArHCZVYZl892hVxXOzQtGKKSReE48444ntmi3JNc+/o/FUr3NCS9WKM/g== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:384c:: with SMTP id r12mr77572808qtb.153.1564411487834; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (bzq-79-181-91-42.red.bezeqint.net. [79.181.91.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h40sm35464987qth.4.2019.07.29.07.44.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:44:38 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jason Wang Cc: syzbot , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop Message-ID: <20190729104028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <11802a8a-ce41-f427-63d5-b6a4cf96bb3f@redhat.com> <20190726074644-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5cc94f15-b229-a290-55f3-8295266edb2b@redhat.com> <20190726082837-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190726094756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <0792ee09-b4b7-673c-2251-e5e0ce0fbe32@redhat.com> <20190729045127-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4d43c094-44ed-dbac-b863-48fc3d754378@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4d43c094-44ed-dbac-b863-48fc3d754378@redhat.com> Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:24:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/7/29 下午4:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:54:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/7/26 下午9:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks > > > > > > last try). > > > > > Ok, I play a little with this. And it works so far. Will do more testing > > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > One reason could be I switch to use get_user_pages_fast() to > > > > > __get_user_pages_fast() which doesn't need mmap_sem. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > OK that sounds good. If we also set a flag to make > > > > vhost_exceeds_weight exit, then I think it will be all good. > > > > > > After some experiments, I came up two methods: > > > > > > 1) switch to use vq->mutex, then we must take the vq lock during range > > > checking (but I don't see obvious slowdown for 16vcpus + 16queues). Setting > > > flags during weight check should work but it still can't address the worst > > > case: wait for the page to be swapped in. Is this acceptable? > > > > > > 2) using current RCU but replace synchronize_rcu() with vhost_work_flush(). > > > The worst case is the same as 1) but we can check range without holding any > > > locks. > > > > > > Which one did you prefer? > > > > > > Thanks > > I would rather we start with 1 and switch to 2 after we > > can show some gain. > > > > But the worst case needs to be addressed. > > > Yes. > > > > How about sending a signal to > > the vhost thread? We will need to fix up error handling (I think that > > at the moment it will error out in that case, handling this as EFAULT - > > and we don't want to drop packets if we can help it, and surely not > > enter any error states. In particular it might be especially tricky if > > we wrote into userspace memory and are now trying to log the write. > > I guess we can disable the optimization if log is enabled?). > > > This may work but requires a lot of changes. I agree. > And actually it's the price of > using vq mutex. Not sure what's meant here. > Actually, the critical section should be rather small, e.g > just inside memory accessors. Also true. > > I wonder whether or not just do synchronize our self like: > > static void inline vhost_inc_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > { >         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref); > >         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref + 1); > smp_rmb(); > } > > static void inline vhost_dec_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > { >         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref); > > smp_wmb(); >         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref - 1); > } > > static void inline vhost_wait_for_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > { >         while (READ_ONCE(vq->ref)); > mb(); > } Looks good but I'd like to think of a strategy/existing lock that let us block properly as opposed to spinning, that would be more friendly to e.g. the realtime patch. > > Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead? > > Thanks These are cheaper on x86, yes. > >