Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/hmm: use reference counting for HMM struct

[Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 04:32:09PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/20/19 4:15 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 04:06:50PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 2/20/19 3:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 03:47:50PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > On 1/29/19 8:54 AM, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Every time i read the code to check that the HMM structure does not
> > > > > > vanish before it should thanks to the many lock protecting its removal
> > > > > > i get a headache. Switch to reference counting instead it is much
> > > > > > easier to follow and harder to break. This also remove some code that
> > > > > > is no longer needed with refcounting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Jerome,
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is an excellent idea. Some review comments below:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > 
> > > > > >     static int hmm_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > > > > >     			const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> > > > > >     {
> > > > > >     	struct hmm_update update;
> > > > > > -	struct hmm *hmm = range->mm->hmm;
> > > > > > +	struct hmm *hmm = hmm_get(range->mm);
> > > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > >     	VM_BUG_ON(!hmm);
> > > > > > +	/* Check if hmm_mm_destroy() was call. */
> > > > > > +	if (hmm->mm == NULL)
> > > > > > +		return 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's delete that NULL check. It can't provide true protection. If there
> > > > > is a way for that to race, we need to take another look at refcounting.
> > > > 
> > > > I will do a patch to delete the NULL check so that it is easier for
> > > > Andrew. No need to respin.
> > > 
> > > (Did you miss my request to make hmm_get/hmm_put symmetric, though?)
> > 
> > Went over my mail i do not see anything about symmetric, what do you
> > mean ?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jérôme
> 
> I meant the comment that I accidentally deleted, before sending the email!
> doh. Sorry about that. :) Here is the recreated comment:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> index a04e4b810610..b9f384ea15e9 100644
> 
> --- a/mm/hmm.c
> 
> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> 
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> 
>  static const struct mmu_notifier_ops hmm_mmu_notifier_ops;
> 
>   */
>  struct hmm {
>  	struct mm_struct	*mm;
> +	struct kref		kref;
>  	spinlock_t		lock;
>  	struct list_head	ranges;
>  	struct list_head	mirrors;
> 
> @@ -57,6 +58,16 @@
> 
>  struct hmm {
> 
>  	struct rw_semaphore	mirrors_sem;
>  };
> 
> +static inline struct hmm *hmm_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> +
> +	if (hmm && kref_get_unless_zero(&hmm->kref))
> +		return hmm;
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> 
> So for this, hmm_get() really ought to be symmetric with
> hmm_put(), by taking a struct hmm*. And the null check is
> not helping here, so let's just go with this smaller version:
> 
> static inline struct hmm *hmm_get(struct hmm *hmm)
> {
> 	if (kref_get_unless_zero(&hmm->kref))
> 		return hmm;
> 
> 	return NULL;
> }
> 
> ...and change the few callers accordingly.
> 

What about renaning hmm_get() to mm_get_hmm() instead ?

Cheers,
Jérôme