From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
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
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:49:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <421a1af6-df06-e4a6-b34f-526ac123bc4a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190730110633-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On 2019/7/30 下午11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:44:47PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/29 下午10:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I mean if we use vq mutex, it means the critical section was increased and
>> we need to deal with swapping then.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Does it make sense to disable preemption in the critical section? Then we
>> don't need to block and we have a deterministic time spent on memory
>> accssors?
> Hmm maybe. I'm getting really nervious at this point - we
> seem to be using every trick in the book.
>
Yes, looking at the synchronization implemented by other MMU notifiers.
Vhost is even the simplest.
>>>> Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> These are cheaper on x86, yes.
>>
>> Will use this.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
> This looks suspiciously like a seqlock though.
> Can that be used somehow?
>
seqlock does not provide a way to synchronize with readers. But I did
borrow some ideas from seqlock and post a new version.
Please review.
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-31 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <0000000000008dd6bb058e006938@google.com>
2019-07-20 10:08 ` WARNING in __mmdrop syzbot
2019-07-21 10:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-21 12:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 5:24 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-22 8:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 4:01 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 5:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 5:47 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 7:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 7:53 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 8:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 8:49 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 9:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 13:31 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-25 5:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-25 7:43 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-25 8:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-25 13:21 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-25 13:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-25 14:25 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-26 11:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-26 12:00 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-26 12:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-26 12:53 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-26 13:36 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-26 13:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-29 5:54 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-29 8:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-29 14:24 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-29 14:44 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-30 7:44 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-30 8:03 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-30 15:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-31 8:49 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2019-07-31 23:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-26 13:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-26 14:00 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-26 14:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-26 15:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-29 5:56 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-21 12:28 ` RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop) Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-21 13:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-21 17:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-21 19:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 7:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 11:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-21 21:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-07-21 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 7:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 11:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 13:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-22 15:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 16:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-22 16:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 15:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-22 15:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 15:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 16:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 16:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 16:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-22 18:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-22 5:21 ` WARNING in __mmdrop Jason Wang
2019-07-22 8:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 3:55 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 5:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 5:48 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 7:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 7:55 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 7:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 8:42 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 10:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 13:34 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-23 15:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-24 2:17 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-24 8:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-24 10:08 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-24 18:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-25 3:44 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-25 5:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-24 16:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-24 18:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 10:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-23 13:37 ` Jason Wang
2019-07-22 14:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-25 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-25 7:44 ` Jason Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=421a1af6-df06-e4a6-b34f-526ac123bc4a@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).