Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: use POLLHUP to close an irqfd instead of an explicit ioctl

Michael S. Tsirkin
2009-06-19T15:37:42Z

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> BTW, Gregory, this can be used to fix the race in the design: create a
> >>>>> thread and let it drop the module reference with module_put_and_exit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I had thought of doing something like this initially too, but I think
> >>>> its racy as well. Ultimately, you need to make sure the eventfd
> >>>> callback is completely out before its safe to run, and deferring to a
> >>>> thread would not change this race. The only sane way I can see to do
> >>>> that is to have the caller infrastructure annotate the event somehow
> >>>> (either directly with a module_put(), or indirectly with some kind of
> >>>> state transition that can be tracked with something like
> >>>> synchronize_sched().
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Here's what one could do: create a thread for each irqfd, and increment
> >>> module ref count, put that thread to sleep. When done with
> >>> irqfd, don't delete it and don't decrement module refcount, wake thread
> >>> instead. thread kills irqfd and calls module_put_and_exit.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think it's racy
> >>>
> >> I believe it is. How would you prevent the thread from doing the
> >> module_put_and_exit() before the eventfd callback thread is known to
> >> have exited the relevant .text section?
> >>
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >
> >> All this talk does give me an idea, tho. Ill make a patch.
> >>
> >
> > OK, but ask yourself whether this bag of tricks is worth it, and whether
> > we'll find another hole later. Let's reserve the trickiness for
> > fast-path, where it's needed, and keep at least the assign/deassign simple.
> >
>
> Understood. OTOH, going back to the model where two steps are needed
> for close() is ugly too, so I don't want to just give up and revert that
> fix too easily. At some point we will call it one way or the other, but
> I am not there quite yet.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Which will work, but I guess at this point we should ask ourselves
> >>>>> whether all the hearburn with srcu, threads and module references is
> >>>>> better than just asking the user to call and ioctl.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am starting to agree with you, here. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Note one thing: the SRCU stuff is mostly orthogonal from the rest of the
> >>>> conversation re: the module_put() races. I only tied it into the
> >>>> current thread because the eventfd_notifier_register() thread gave me a
> >>>> convenient way to hook some other context to do the module_put(). In
> >>>> the long term, the srcu changes are for the can_sleep() stuff. So on
> >>>> that note, lets see if I can convince Davide that the srcu stuff is not
> >>>> so evil before we revert the POLLHUP patches, since the module_put() fix
> >>>> is trivial once that is in place.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Can this help with DEASSIGN as well? We need it for migration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> No, but afaict you do not need this for migration anyway. Migrate the
> >> GSI and re-call kvm_irqfd() on the other side. Would the fd even be
> >> relevant across a migration anyway? I would think not, but admittedly I
> >> know little about how qemu/kvm migration actually works.
> >>
> >
> > Yes but that's not live migration. For live migration, the trick is that
> > you are running locally but send changes to remote guest. For that, we
> > need to put qemu in the middle between the device and the guest, so it
> > can detect activity and update the remote side.
> >
> > And the best way to do that is to take poll eventfd that device assigns
> > and push eventfd that kvm polls. To switch between this setup
> > and the one where kvm polls the ventfd from device directly,
> > you need deassign.
> >
>
> So its still not clear why the distinction between
> deassign-the-gsi-but-leave-the-fd-valid is needed over a simple
> close(). Can you elaborate?

The fd needs to be left assigned to the device, so that we can poll
the fd and get events, then forward them to kvm.

--
MST