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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 5D618C31E40 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5B9206E0 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730641AbfG3HpF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54908 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729460AbfG3HpE (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD0BC027339; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.185] (ovpn-12-185.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.185]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA805C1A1; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 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> <20190729104028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <96b1d67c-3a8d-1224-e9f0-5f7725a3dc10@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:44:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190729104028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > >> Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead? >> >> Thanks > These are cheaper on x86, yes. Will use this. Thanks >