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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 10E69C43460 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD4361360 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234417AbhDWLvB (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:51:01 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:14130 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229479AbhDWLvA (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:51:00 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13NBXjnc006760; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:50:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=FFMxJX7lW4KU5c0BZKup/ENKNNaHx2jIkW84uRz4ZQg=; b=ZwsfvCmyT9LfMxzsSsajoLzb03hs1HLSTeybh2TvbXAK9bP5meWQRE/EEPYL7oHLV8F2 sI/iO8cdiLICtmOlUihk2Ap6o/PS0KP9uZvCKvxkjWgGHSXZi8q5sYxWd9HMR9MhCHgj RUUGDjDcA2vsQugah+tGlSi94/ufoFXCK2JOYdIpZNC6DlJAu8vHzwAnicmXNI1Hijx5 RHeMBvhG3Y5xokLX7vkFpidHucRQoqcDW/Ix3bRXJ1aUDrZNsp11ZpEG6wjn3XQ3lXFG FH7m+9b78D73JOOtYbQ8Ec3kigkdbvo4AHUfNkUXub2Xnoj1syNZBRn67bjjBLhKUhCY Cg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 383qa53e13-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:50:23 -0400 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13NBYeBY008851; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:50:23 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 383qa53e06-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:50:23 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13NBnPjY014102; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:21 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yqa8kbxc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:21 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13NBoIwl19661138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:18 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025F6AE056; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E6DAE055; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e979b1cc-23ba-11b2-a85c-dfd230f6cf82 (unknown [9.171.88.237]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:50:16 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:50:15 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Eric Farman Cc: Cornelia Huck , Matthew Rosato , Jared Rossi , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] vfio-ccw: Fix interrupt handling for HALT/CLEAR Message-ID: <20210423135015.5283edde.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1eb9cbdfe43a42a62f6afb0315bb1e3a103dac9a.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <20210413182410.1396170-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> <20210422025258.6ed7619d.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <1eb9cbdfe43a42a62f6afb0315bb1e3a103dac9a.camel@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 24tmlj2rrUUDiTcOGe0CkkPrLC9uzBJG X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: NZOdGjE9gEyA6_DU1u6-GFp9iEoPwHYf X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-23_03:2021-04-23,2021-04-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104230075 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:49:21 -0400 Eric Farman wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 02:52 +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:24:06 +0200 > > Eric Farman wrote: > > > > > Hi Conny, Halil, > > > > > > Let's restart our discussion about the collision between interrupts > > > for > > > START SUBCHANNEL and HALT/CLEAR SUBCHANNEL. It's been a quarter > > > million > > > minutes (give or take), so here is the problematic scenario again: > > > > > > CPU 1 CPU 2 > > > 1 CLEAR SUBCHANNEL > > > 2 fsm_irq() > > > 3 START SUBCHANNEL > > > 4 vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo() > > > 5 fsm_irq() > > > 6 vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo() > > > > > > From the channel subsystem's point of view the CLEAR SUBCHANNEL > > > (step 1) > > > is complete once step 2 is called, as the Interrupt Response Block > > > (IRB) > > > has been presented and the TEST SUBCHANNEL was driven by the cio > > > layer. > > > Thus, the START SUBCHANNEL (step 3) is submitted [1] and gets a > > > cc=0 to > > > indicate the I/O was accepted. However, step 2 stacks the bulk of > > > the > > > actual work onto a workqueue for when the subchannel lock is NOT > > > held, > > > and is unqueued at step 4. That code misidentifies the data in the > > > IRB > > > as being associated with the newly active I/O, and may release > > > memory > > > that is actively in use by the channel subsystem and/or device. > > > Eww. > > > > > > In this version... > > > > > > Patch 1 and 2 are defensive checks. Patch 2 was part of v3 [2], but > > > I > > > would love a better option here to guard between steps 2 and 4. > > > > > > Patch 3 is a subset of the removal of the CP_PENDING FSM state in > > > v3. > > > I've obviously gone away from this idea, but I thought this piece > > > is > > > still valuable. > > > > > > Patch 4 collapses the code on the interrupt path so that changes to > > > the FSM state and the channel_program struct are handled at the > > > same > > > point, rather than separated by a mutex boundary. Because of the > > > possibility of a START and HALT/CLEAR running concurrently, it does > > > not make sense to split them here. > > > > > > With the above patches, maybe it then makes sense to hold the > > > io_mutex > > > across the entirety of vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(). But I'm not > > > completely > > > sure that would be acceptable. > > > > > > So... Thoughts? > > > > I believe we should address > > Who is the "we" here? > The people that are responsible for vfio-ccw. > > the concurrency, encapsulation and layering > > issues in the subchannel/ccw pass-through code (vfio-ccw) by taking a > > holistic approach as soon as possible. > > > > I find the current state of art very hard to reason about, and that > > adversely affects my ability to reason about attempts at partial > > improvements. > > > > I understand that such a holistic approach needs a lot of work, and > > we > > may have to stop some bleeding first. In the stop the bleeding phase > > we > > can take a pragmatic approach and accept changes that empirically > > seem to > > work towards stopping the bleeding. I.e. if your tests say it's > > better, > > I'm willing to accept that it is better. > > So much bleeding! > > RE: my tests... I have only been seeing the described problem in > pathological tests, and this series lets those tests run without issue. > Good to know. > > > > I have to admit, I don't understand how synchronization is done in > > the > > vfio-ccw kernel module (in the sense of avoiding data races). > > > > Regarding your patches, I have to admit, I have a hard time figuring > > out > > which one of these (or what combination of them) is supposed to solve > > the problem you described above. If I had to guess, I would guess it > > is > > either patch 4, because it has a similar scenario diagram in the > > commit message like the one in the problem statement. Is my guess > > right? > > Sort of. It is true that Patch 4 is the last piece of the puzzle, and > the diagram is included in that commit message so it is kept with the > change, instead of being lost with the cover letter. > > As I said in the cover letter, "Patch 1 and 2 are defensive checks" > which are simply included to provide a more robust solution. You could > argue that Patch 3 should be held out separately, but as it came from > the previous version of this series it made sense to include here. > Does that mean we need patches 1, 2 and 4 to fix the issue or is just 4 sufficient? > > > > If it is right I don't quite understand the mechanics of the fix, > > because what the patch seems to do is changing the content of step 4 > > in > > the above diagram. And I don't see how is change that code > > so that it does not "misidentifies the data in the IRB as being > > associated with the newly active I/O". > > Consider that the cp_update_scsw() and cp_free() routines that get > called here are looking at the cp->initialized flag to determine > whether to perform any work. For a system that is otherwise idle, the > cp->initialized flag will be false when processing an IRB related to a > CSCH, meaning the bulk of this routine will be a NOP. > > In the failing scenario, as I describe in the commit message for patch > 4, we could be processing an interrupt that is unaffiliated with the CP > that was (or is being) built. It need not even be a solicited > interrupt; it just happened that the CSCH interrupt is what got me > looking at this path. The whole situation boils down to the FSM state > and cp->initialized flag being out of sync from one another after > coming through this function. > Thanks for the explanation. Since you are about to send out a new verison which I understand won't be just about cosmetic fixes, I won't invest any more in understanding this one. But I hope this will help me understand that one. > > Moreover patch 4 seems to rely on > > private->state which, AFAIR is still used in a racy fashion. > > > > But if strong empirical evidence shows that it performs better (stops > > the bleeding), I think we can go ahead with it. > > Again with the bleeding. Is there a Doctor in the house? :) > Sorry if I expressed myself comically. Was not my intention. I'm puzzled. Is in your opinion the vfio-ccw kernel module data race free with this series applied? Regards, Halil