From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@nvidia.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm/hmm: unregister mmu_notifier when last HMM client quit v2
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:50:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180323005017.GB5011@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b858d92a-3a38-bfff-fe66-697c64ea2053@nvidia.com>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:13:14PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 04:37 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:47:16PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2018 04:41 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:22:49PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >>>> On 03/21/2018 11:16 AM, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
> >>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>
> >>> No this code is correct. hmm->mm is set after hmm struct is allocated
> >>> and before it is public so no one can race with that. It is clear in
> >>> hmm_mirror_unregister() under the write lock hence checking it here
> >>> under that same lock is correct.
> >>
> >> Are you implying that code that calls hmm_mirror_register() should do
> >> it's own locking, to prevent simultaneous calls to that function? Because
> >> as things are right now, multiple threads can arrive at this point. The
> >> fact that mirror->hmm is not "public" is irrelevant; what matters is that
> >>> 1 thread can change it simultaneously.
> >
> > The content of struct hmm_mirror should not be modified by code outside
> > HMM after hmm_mirror_register() and before hmm_mirror_unregister(). This
> > is a private structure to HMM and the driver should not touch it, ie it
> > should be considered as read only/const from driver code point of view.
>
> Yes, that point is clear and obvious.
>
> >
> > It is also expected (which was obvious to me) that driver only call once
> > and only once hmm_mirror_register(), and only once hmm_mirror_unregister()
> > for any given hmm_mirror struct. Note that driver can register multiple
> > _different_ mirror struct to same mm or differents mm.
> >
> > There is no need of locking on the driver side whatsoever as long as the
> > above rules are respected. I am puzzle if they were not obvious :)
>
> Those rules were not obvious. It's unusual to claim that register and unregister
> can run concurrently, but regiser and register cannot. Let's please document
> the rules a bit in the comments.
I am really surprise this was not obvious. All existing _register API
in the kernel follow this. You register something once only and doing
it twice for same structure (ie unique struct hmm_mirror *mirror pointer
value) leads to serious bugs (doing so concurently or not).
For instance if you call mmu_notifier_register() twice (concurrently
or not) with same pointer value for struct mmu_notifier *mn then bad
thing will happen. Same for driver_register() but this one actualy
have sanity check and complain loudly if that happens. I doubt there
is any single *_register/unregister() in the kernel that does not
follow this.
Note that doing register/unregister concurrently for the same unique
hmm_mirror struct is also illegal. However concurrent register and
unregister of different hmm_mirror struct is legal and this is the
reasons for races we were discussing.
Cheers,
Jerome
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@nvidia.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm/hmm: unregister mmu_notifier when last HMM client quit v2
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:50:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180323005017.GB5011@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b858d92a-3a38-bfff-fe66-697c64ea2053@nvidia.com>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:13:14PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 04:37 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:47:16PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2018 04:41 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:22:49PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >>>> On 03/21/2018 11:16 AM, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
> >>>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>
> >>> No this code is correct. hmm->mm is set after hmm struct is allocated
> >>> and before it is public so no one can race with that. It is clear in
> >>> hmm_mirror_unregister() under the write lock hence checking it here
> >>> under that same lock is correct.
> >>
> >> Are you implying that code that calls hmm_mirror_register() should do
> >> it's own locking, to prevent simultaneous calls to that function? Because
> >> as things are right now, multiple threads can arrive at this point. The
> >> fact that mirror->hmm is not "public" is irrelevant; what matters is that
> >>> 1 thread can change it simultaneously.
> >
> > The content of struct hmm_mirror should not be modified by code outside
> > HMM after hmm_mirror_register() and before hmm_mirror_unregister(). This
> > is a private structure to HMM and the driver should not touch it, ie it
> > should be considered as read only/const from driver code point of view.
>
> Yes, that point is clear and obvious.
>
> >
> > It is also expected (which was obvious to me) that driver only call once
> > and only once hmm_mirror_register(), and only once hmm_mirror_unregister()
> > for any given hmm_mirror struct. Note that driver can register multiple
> > _different_ mirror struct to same mm or differents mm.
> >
> > There is no need of locking on the driver side whatsoever as long as the
> > above rules are respected. I am puzzle if they were not obvious :)
>
> Those rules were not obvious. It's unusual to claim that register and unregister
> can run concurrently, but regiser and register cannot. Let's please document
> the rules a bit in the comments.
I am really surprise this was not obvious. All existing _register API
in the kernel follow this. You register something once only and doing
it twice for same structure (ie unique struct hmm_mirror *mirror pointer
value) leads to serious bugs (doing so concurently or not).
For instance if you call mmu_notifier_register() twice (concurrently
or not) with same pointer value for struct mmu_notifier *mn then bad
thing will happen. Same for driver_register() but this one actualy
have sanity check and complain loudly if that happens. I doubt there
is any single *_register/unregister() in the kernel that does not
follow this.
Note that doing register/unregister concurrently for the same unique
hmm_mirror struct is also illegal. However concurrent register and
unregister of different hmm_mirror struct is legal and this is the
reasons for races we were discussing.
Cheers,
Jérôme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-23 0:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-20 2:00 [PATCH 00/15] hmm: fixes and documentations v3 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 01/15] mm/hmm: documentation editorial update to HMM documentation jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 02/15] mm/hmm: fix header file if/else/endif maze v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 03/15] mm/hmm: HMM should have a callback before MM is destroyed v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 4:14 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 4:14 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 18:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 18:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 18:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 22:16 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 22:16 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 22:46 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 22:46 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 22:46 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:10 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:10 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:37 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:37 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:37 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 0:11 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 0:11 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 1:32 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 1:32 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 1:32 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 1:28 ` [PATCH 03/15] mm/hmm: HMM should have a callback before MM is destroyed v3 jglisse
2018-03-22 1:28 ` jglisse
2018-03-22 6:58 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 6:58 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 04/15] mm/hmm: unregister mmu_notifier when last HMM client quit jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 4:24 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 4:24 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 18:12 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 18:12 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 18:16 ` [PATCH 04/15] mm/hmm: unregister mmu_notifier when last HMM client quit v2 jglisse
2018-03-21 18:16 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 23:22 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:22 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:41 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:41 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 22:47 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 22:47 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 23:37 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-22 23:37 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-23 0:13 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-23 0:13 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-23 0:50 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2018-03-23 0:50 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-23 0:56 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-23 0:56 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-22 1:30 ` [PATCH 04/15] mm/hmm: unregister mmu_notifier when last HMM client quit v3 jglisse
2018-03-22 1:30 ` jglisse
2018-03-22 22:36 ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 05/15] mm/hmm: hmm_pfns_bad() was accessing wrong struct jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 06/15] mm/hmm: use struct for hmm_vma_fault(), hmm_vma_get_pfns() parameters v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 07/15] mm/hmm: remove HMM_PFN_READ flag and ignore peculiar architecture v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 08/15] mm/hmm: use uint64_t for HMM pfn instead of defining hmm_pfn_t to ulong v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 09/15] mm/hmm: cleanup special vma handling (VM_SPECIAL) jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 10/15] mm/hmm: do not differentiate between empty entry or missing directory v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 5:24 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 5:24 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 14:48 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 14:48 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:16 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:16 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 11/15] mm/hmm: rename HMM_PFN_DEVICE_UNADDRESSABLE to HMM_PFN_DEVICE_PRIVATE jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 12/15] mm/hmm: move hmm_pfns_clear() closer to where it is use jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 13/15] mm/hmm: factor out pte and pmd handling to simplify hmm_vma_walk_pmd() jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 5:07 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 5:07 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 15:08 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 15:08 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 22:36 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 22:36 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 14/15] mm/hmm: change hmm_vma_fault() to allow write fault on page basis jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` [PATCH 15/15] mm/hmm: use device driver encoding for HMM pfn v2 jglisse
2018-03-20 2:00 ` jglisse
2018-03-21 4:39 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 4:39 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 15:52 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 15:52 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 23:19 ` John Hubbard
2018-03-21 23:19 ` John Hubbard
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=20180323005017.GB5011@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebaskakov@nvidia.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhairgrove@nvidia.com \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.