Re: [RFC 2/2] x86, vdso, pvclock: Simplify and speed up the vdso pvclock reader

Andy Lutomirski
2015-01-06T18:26:22Z

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2015 4:01 AM, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 06/01/2015 09:42, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> > > > > Still confused. So we can freeze all vCPUs in the host, then update
>> > > > > pvti 1, then resume vCPU 1, then update pvti 0? In that case, we have
>> > > > > a problem, because vCPU 1 can observe pvti 0 mid-update, and KVM
>> > > > > doesn't increment the version pre-update, and we can return completely
>> > > > > bogus results.
>> > > > Yes.
>> > > But then the getcpu test would fail (1->0). Even if you have an ABA
>> > > situation (1->0->1), it's okay because the pvti that is fetched is the
>> > > one returned by the first getcpu.
>> >
>> > ... this case of partial update of pvti, which is caught by the version
>> > field, if of course different from the other (extremely unlikely) that
>> > Andy pointed out. That is when the getcpus are done on the same vCPU,
>> > but the rdtsc is another.
>> >
>> > That one can be fixed by rdtscp, like
>> >
>> > do {
>> > // get a consistent (pvti, v, tsc) tuple
>> > do {
>> > cpu = get_cpu();
>> > pvti = get_pvti(cpu);
>> > v = pvti->version & ~1;
>> > // also acts as rmb();
>> > rdtsc_barrier();
>> > tsc = rdtscp(&cpu1);
>>
>> Off-topic note: rdtscp doesn't need a barrier at all. AIUI AMD
>> specified it that way and both AMD and Intel implement it correctly.
>> (rdtsc, on the other hand, definitely needs the barrier beforehand.)
>>
>> > // control dependency, no need for rdtsc_barrier?
>> > } while(cpu != cpu1);
>> >
>> > // ... compute nanoseconds from pvti and tsc ...
>> > rmb();
>> > } while(v != pvti->version);
>>
>> Still no good. We can migrate a bunch of times so we see the same CPU
>> all three times and *still* don't get a consistent read, unless we
>> play nasty games with lots of version checks (I have a patch for that,
>> but I don't like it very much). The patch is here:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso_paranoia&id=a69754dc5ff33f5187162b5338854ad23dd7be8d
>>
>> but I don't like it.
>>
>> Thus far, I've been told unambiguously that a guest can't observe pvti
>> while it's being written, and I think you're now telling me that this
>> isn't true and that a guest *can* observe pvti while it's being
>> written while the low bit of the version field is not set. If so,
>> this is rather strongly incompatible with the spec in the KVM docs.
>>
>> I don't suppose that you and Marcelo could agree on what the actual
>> semantics that KVM provides are and could write it down in a way that
>> people who haven't spent a long time staring at the request code
>> understand? And maybe you could even fix the implementation while
>> you're at it if the implementation is, indeed, broken. I have ugly
>> patches to fix it here:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso_paranoia&id=3b718a050cba52563d831febc2e1ca184c02bac0
>>
>> but I'm not thrilled with them.
>>
>> --Andy
>
> I suppose that separating the version write from the rest of the pvclock
> structure is sufficient, as that would guarantee the writes are not
> reordered even with fast string REP MOVS.
>
> Thanks for catching this Andy!
>

Don't you stil need:

version++;
write the rest;
version++;

with possible smp_wmb() in there to keep the compiler from messing around?

Also, if you do this, can you also make setting and clearing
STABLE_BIT properly atomic across all vCPUs? Or at least do something
like setting it last and clearing it first on vPCU 0?

--Andy