lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/13] mm/rmap: update to new mmu_notifier semantic
From
Date
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:47:19PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:25:54PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> For both CoW and KSM, the correctness is maintained by calling
>>> ptep_clear_flush_notify(). If you defer the secondary MMU invalidation
>>> (i.e., replacing ptep_clear_flush_notify() with ptep_clear_flush() ), you
>>> will cause memory corruption, and page-lock would not be enough.
>>
>> Just to add up, the IOMMU have its own CPU page table walker and it can
>> walk the page table at any time (not the page table current to current
>> CPU, IOMMU have an array that match a PASID with a page table and device
>> request translation for a given virtual address against a PASID).
>>
>> So this means the following can happen with ptep_clear_flush() only:
>>
>> CPU | IOMMU
>> | - walk page table populate tlb at addr A
>> - clear pte at addr A |
>> - set new pte |
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end | -flush IOMMU/device tlb
>
>> Device is using old page and CPU new page :(
>
> That condition won't be persistent.
>
>> But with ptep_clear_flush_notify()
>>
>> CPU | IOMMU
>> | - walk page table populate tlb at addr A
>> - clear pte at addr A |
>> - notify -> invalidate_range | > flush IOMMU/device tlb
>> - set new pte |
>>
>> So now either the IOMMU see the empty pte and trigger a page fault (this is
>> if there is a racing IOMMU ATS right after the IOMMU/device tlb flush but
>> before setting the new pte) or it see the new pte. Either way both IOMMU
>> and CPU have a coherent view of what a virtual address points to.
>
> Sure, the _notify version is obviously safe.
>
>> Andrea explained to me the historical reasons set_pte_at_notify call the
>> change_pte callback and it was intended so that KVM could update the
>> secondary page table directly without having to fault. It is now a pointless
>> optimization as the call to range_start() happening in all the places before
>> any set_pte_at_notify() invalidate the secondary page table and thus will
>> lead to page fault for the vm. I have talk with Andrea on way to bring back
>> this optimization.
>
> Yes, we known for a long time, the optimization got basically disabled
> when range_start/end expanded. It'd be nice to optimize change_pte
> again but this is for later.
>
>> Yes we need the following sequence for IOMMU:
>> - clear pte
>> - invalidate IOMMU/device TLB
>> - set new pte
>>
>> Otherwise the IOMMU page table walker can populate IOMMU/device tlb with
>> stall entry.
>>
>> Note that this is not necessary for all the case. For try_to_unmap it
>> is fine for instance to move the IOMMU tlb shoot down after changing the
>> CPU page table as we are not pointing the pte to a different page. Either
>> we clear the pte or we set a swap entry and as long as the page that use
>> to be pointed by the pte is not free before the IOMMU tlb flush then we
>> are fine.
>>
>> In fact i think the only case where we need the above sequence (clear,
>> flush secondary tlb, set new pte) is for COW. I think all other cases
>> we can get rid of invalidate_range() from inside the page table lock
>> and rely on invalidate_range_end() to call unconditionaly.
>
> Even with CoW, it's not big issue if the IOMMU keeps reading from the
> old page for a little while longer (in between PT lock release and
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end).
>
> How can you tell you read the old data a bit longer, because it
> noticed the new page only when mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end run,
> and not because the CPU was faster at writing than the IOMMU was fast
> at loading the new pagetable?
>
> I figure it would be detectable only that the CPU could see pageA
> changing before pageB. The iommu-v2 could see pageB changing before
> pageA. If that's a concern that is the only good reason I can think of
> right now, for requiring ->invalidate_page inside the CoW PT lock to
> enforce the same ordering. However if the modifications happens
> simultaneously and it's a correct runtime, the order must not matter,
> but still it would be detectable which may not be desirable.

I don’t know what is the memory model that SVM provides, but what you
describe here potentially violates it. I don’t think user software should
be expected to deal with it.

>
> Currently the _notify is absolutely needed to run ->invalidate_range
> before put_page is run in the CoW code below, because of the put_page
> that is done in a not scalable place, it would be better moved down
> regardless of ->invalidate_range to reduce the size of the PT lock
> protected critical section.
>
> - if (new_page)
> - put_page(new_page);
>
> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(mm, mmun_start, mmun_end);
> + if (new_page)
> + put_page(new_page);
>
> Of course the iommu will not immediately start reading from the new
> page, but even if it triggers a write protect fault and calls
> handle_mm_fault, it will find a writeable pte already there and it'll
> get an ->invalidate_range as soon as mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end
> runs so it can sure notice the new page.
>
> Now write_protect_page in KSM...
>
> What bad can happen if iommu keeps writing to the write protected
> page, for a little while longer? As long as nothing writes to the page
> anymore by the time write_protect_page() returns, pages_identical will
> work. How do you know the IOMMU was just a bit faster and wrote a few
> more bytes and it wasn't mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end that run a
> bit later after dropping the PT lock?

I guess it should be ok in this case.

>
> Now replace_page in KSM...
>
> ptep_clear_flush_notify(vma, addr, ptep);
> set_pte_at_notify(mm, addr, ptep, newpte);
>
> page_remove_rmap(page, false);
> if (!page_mapped(page))
> try_to_free_swap(page);
> - put_page(page);
>
> pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
> err = 0;
> out_mn:
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(mm, mmun_start, mmun_end);
> out:
> + put_page(page); /* TODO: broken of course, fix error cases */
> return err;
> }
>
> If we free the old page after mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end
> (fixing up the error case, the above change ignores the error paths),
> the content of the old and new page are identical for replace_page.
>
> Even if new page takes immediately a COW, how do you know the IOMMU
> was just a bit slower and read the old page content pre-COW? They're
> guaranteed identical and both readonly already at that point.

A potential problem might be that it requires that there would be no
promotion of PTE access-rights (e.g., RO->RW), since in these cases there
would be no invalidation. I did not find such a code-path, but I might have
missed one, or new one can be introduced in the future. For example, someone
may optimize KSM not to COW the last reference of a KSM’d upon page-fault.

Therefore, such optimizations may require some soft of a checker, or the
very least clear documentation when an invalidation is required, especially
that it would require invalidation on access-rights promotion, which is
currently not needed.

> All the above considered, if this is getting way too complex, it may
> be preferable to keep things obviously safe and always run
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range inside the PT lock and be done with it,
> and remove the ->invalidate_range from
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end too to avoid the double invalidates
> for the secondary MMUs with hardware pagetable walkers and shared
> pagetables with the primary MMU.
>
> In principle the primary reason for doing _notify or explicit
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() is to keep things simpler and to avoid
> having to care where pages exactly gets freed (i.e. before or after
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end).
>
> For example zap_page_range tlb gather freeing strictly requires an
> explicit mmu_notifier_invalidate_range before the page is actually
> freed (because the tlb gather will free the pages well before
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end can run).
>
> The concern that an ->invalidate_range is always needed before PT lock
> is released if the primary TLB was flushed inside PT lock, is a more
> recent concern and it looks like to me it's not always needed but
> perhaps only in some case.
>
> An example where the ->invalidate_range inside
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end pays off, is madvise_free_pte_range.
> That doesn't flush the TLB before setting the pagetable clean. So the
> primary MMU can still write through the dirty primary TLB without
> setting the dirty/accessed bit after madvise_free_pte_range returns.
>
> ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
> tlb->fullmm);
>
> ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> ptent = pte_mkclean(ptent);
> set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>
> Not even the primary TLB is flushed here. All concurrent writes of the
> primary MMU can still go lost while MADV_FREE runs. All that is
> guaranteed is that after madvise MADV_FREE syscall returns to
> userland, the new writes will stick, so then it's also enough to call
> ->invalidate_range inside the single
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end:
>
> madvise_free_page_range(&tlb, vma, start, end);
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(mm, start, end);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This why we got both _notify and mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end. If
> we remove ->invalidate_range from mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end,
> we'll have to add a mmu_notifier_invalidate_range in places like above
> (just before or just after mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end above).
>
> So with ptep_clear_flush_notify that avoids any issue with page
> freeing in places like CoW, and the explicit
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range in the tlb gather, the rest got covered
> automatically by mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end. And again this is
> only started to be needed when we added support for hardware pagetable
> walkers that cannot stop the pagetable walking (unless they break the
> sharing of the pagetable with the primary MMU which of course is not
> desirable and it would cause unnecessary overhead).
>
> The current ->invalidate_range handling however results in double
> calls here and there when armed, but it reduces the number of explicit
> hooks required in the common code and it keeps the mmu_notifier code
> less intrusive and more optimal when disarmed (but less optimal when
> armed). So the current state is a reasonable tradeoff, but there's
> room for optimization.

Everything you say makes sense, but at the end of the day you end up with
two different schemes for flushing the primary and secondary TLBs. For
example, the primary TLB flush mechanism is much more selective in flushing
than the secondary one. The discrepancy between the two surely does not
make things simpler.

Indeed, there might be different costs and trade-offs in the primary and
secondary TLBs (e.g., TLB flush/shootdown time, TLB miss latency, whether an
address-space is always loaded), but I have some doubts whether this
decision was data driven.

Regards,
Nadav

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-31 21:16    [W:0.098 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site