From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
"Felix.Kuehling@amd.com" <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@amd.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_vma_walk_pud slightly
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:37:34 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200312163734.GR31668@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <689d3c56-3d19-4655-21f5-f9aeab3089df@arm.com>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 04:16:33PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> > Actually, while you are looking at this, do you think we should be
> > adding at least READ_ONCE in the pagewalk.c walk_* functions? The
> > multiple references of pmd, pud, etc without locking seems sketchy to
> > me.
>
> I agree it seems worrying. I'm not entirely sure whether the holding of
> mmap_sem is sufficient,
I looked at this question, and at least for PMD, mmap_sem is not
sufficient. I didn't easilly figure it out for the other ones
I'm guessing if PMD is not safe then none of them are.
> this isn't something that I changed so I've just
> been hoping that it's sufficient since it seems to have been working
> (whether that's by chance because the compiler didn't generate multiple
> reads I've no idea). For walking the kernel's page tables the lack of
> READ_ONCE is also not great, but at least for PTDUMP we don't care too much
> about accuracy and it should be crash proof because there's no RCU grace
> period. And again the code I was replacing didn't have any special
> protection.
>
> I can't see any harm in updating the code to include READ_ONCE and I'm happy
> to review a patch.
The reason I ask is because hmm's walkers often have this pattern
where they get the pointer and then de-ref it (again) then
immediately have to recheck the 'again' conditions of the walker
itself because the re-read may have given a different value.
Having the walker deref the pointer and pass the value it into the ops
for use rather than repeatedly de-refing an unlocked value seems like
a much safer design to me.
If this also implicitly relies on a RCU grace period then it is also
missing RCU locking...
I also didn't quite understand why walk_pte_range() skipped locking
the pte in the no_vma case - I don't get why vma would be related to
locking here.
I also saw that hmm open coded the pte walk, presumably for
performance, so I was thinking of adding some kind of pte_range()
callback to avoid the expensive indirect function call per pte, but
hmm also can't have the pmd locked...
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-12 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-11 18:34 [PATCH hmm 0/8] Various error case bug fixes for hmm_range_fault() Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-11 18:34 ` [PATCH hmm 1/8] mm/hmm: add missing unmaps of the ptep during hmm_vma_handle_pte() Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:28 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-12 14:24 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 2/8] mm/hmm: don't free the cached pgmap while scanning Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:29 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 18:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 18:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 19:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 3/8] mm/hmm: do not call hmm_vma_walk_hole() while holding a spinlock Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:31 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-12 8:54 ` Steven Price
2020-03-12 10:28 ` [PATCH] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_vma_walk_pud slightly Steven Price
2020-03-12 14:27 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 14:40 ` Steven Price
2020-03-12 15:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 16:16 ` Steven Price
2020-03-12 16:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2020-03-12 17:02 ` Steven Price
2020-03-12 17:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-13 19:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-13 21:04 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-03-13 22:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 9:05 ` [PATCH hmm 3/8] mm/hmm: do not call hmm_vma_walk_hole() while holding a spinlock Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 12:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 4/8] mm/hmm: add missing pfns set to hmm_vma_walk_pmd() Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:33 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 5/8] mm/hmm: add missing call to hmm_range_need_fault() before returning EFAULT Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:34 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 6/8] mm/hmm: reorganize how !pte_present is handled in hmm_vma_handle_pte() Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:36 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 7/8] mm/hmm: return -EFAULT when setting HMM_PFN_ERROR on requested valid pages Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:36 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-12 14:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 9:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 18:35 ` [PATCH hmm 8/8] mm/hmm: add missing call to hmm_pte_need_fault in HMM_PFN_SPECIAL handling Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 1:38 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 12:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 12:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 13:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 13:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-17 12:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-17 12:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-17 13:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-17 13:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-16 12:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-12 19:33 ` [PATCH hmm 9/8] mm/hmm: do not check pmd_protnone twice in hmm_vma_handle_pmd() Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-12 23:50 ` Ralph Campbell
2020-03-16 9:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-16 18:25 ` [PATCH hmm 0/8] Various error case bug fixes for hmm_range_fault() Jason Gunthorpe
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=20200312163734.GR31668@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=Felix.Kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=Philip.Yang@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).