Re: [PATCH 2/2] s390/mm,tlb: race of lazy TLB flush vs. recreation of TLB entries

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:44:37 +0000
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:33:59PM +0000, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:22:23 +0000
> > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:10:07AM +0000, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:16:35 +0000
> > > > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 13 November 2013 08:16, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > > > > > index 5d1f950..e91afeb 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > > > > > @@ -48,13 +48,38 @@ static inline void update_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > > > >  static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> > > > > >                              struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -       cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next));
> > > > > > -       update_mm(next, tsk);
> > > > > > +       int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       if (prev == next)
> > > > > > +               return;
> > > > > > +       if (atomic_inc_return(&next->context.attach_count) >> 16) {
> > > > > > +               /* Delay update_mm until all TLB flushes are done. */
> > > > > > +               set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_TLB_WAIT);
> > > > > > +       } else {
> > > > > > +               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
> > > > > > +               update_mm(next, tsk);
> > > > > > +               if (next->context.flush_mm)
> > > > > > +                       /* Flush pending TLBs */
> > > > > > +                       __tlb_flush_mm(next);
> > > > > > +       }
> > > > > >         atomic_dec(&prev->context.attach_count);
> > > > > >         WARN_ON(atomic_read(&prev->context.attach_count) < 0);
> > > > > > -       atomic_inc(&next->context.attach_count);
> > > > > > -       /* Check for TLBs not flushed yet */
> > > > > > -       __tlb_flush_mm_lazy(next);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#define finish_switch_mm finish_switch_mm
> > > > > > +static inline void finish_switch_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > > > +                                   struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       if (!test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_TLB_WAIT))
> > > > > > +               return;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       while (atomic_read(&mm->context.attach_count) >> 16)
> > > > > > +               cpu_relax();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(mm));
> > > > > > +       update_mm(mm, tsk);
> > > > > > +       if (mm->context.flush_mm)
> > > > > > +               __tlb_flush_mm(mm);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some care is needed here with preemption (we had this on arm and I
> > > > > think we need a fix on arm64 as well). Basically you set TIF_TLB_WAIT
> > > > > on a thread but you get preempted just before finish_switch_mm(). The
> > > > > new thread has the same mm as the preempted on and switch_mm() exits
> > > > > early without setting another flag. So finish_switch_mm() wouldn't do
> > > > > anything but you still switched to the new mm. The fix is to make the
> > > > > flag per mm rather than thread (see commit bdae73cd374e).
> > > > 
> > > > Interesting. For s390 I need to make sure that each task attaching an
> > > > mm waits for the completion of concurrent TLB flush operations. If the
> > > > scheduler does not switch the mm I don't care, the mm is still attached.
> > > 
> > > I assume the actual hardware mm switch happens via update_mm(). If you
> > > have a context_switch() to a thread which requires an update_mm() but you
> > > defer this until finish_switch_mm(), you may be preempted before the
> > > hardware update. If the new context_switch() schedules a thread with the
> > > same mm as the preempted one, you no longer call update_mm(). So the new
> > > thread actually uses an old hardware mm.
> >  
> > If the code gets preempted between switch_mm() and finish_switch_mm()
> > the worst that can happen is that finish_switch_mm() is called twice.
> 
> Yes, it's called twice, but you only set the TIF_TLB_WAIT the first
> time. Here's the scenario:
> 
> 1. thread-A running with mm-A
> 2. context_switch() to thread-B1 causing a switch_mm(mm-B)
> 3. switch_mm(mm-B) sets thread-B1's TIF_TLB_WAIT but does _not_ call
>    update_mm(mm-B). Hardware still using mm-A
> 4. scheduler unlocks and is about to call finish_mm_switch(mm-B)
> 5. interrupt and preemption before finish_mm_switch(mm-B)
> 6. context_switch() to thread-B2 causing a switch_mm(mm-B) (note here
>    that thread-B1 and thread-B2 have the same mm-B)
> 7. switch_mm() as in this patch exits early because prev == next
> 8. finish_mm_switch(mm-B) is indeed called but TIF_TLB_WAIT is not set
>    for thread-B2, therefore no call to update_mm(mm-B)
> 
> So after point 8, you get thread-B2 running (and possibly returning to
> user space) with mm-A. Do you see a problem here?

Oh, now I get it. Thanks for the patience, this is indeed a problem.
And I concur, a per-mm flag is the 'obvious' solution.

> > But back to the original question: would it cause a problem for arm
> > if we add the two additional calls to finish_arch_post_lock_switch()
> > to idle_task_exit() and use_mm() ?
> 
> There shouldn't be any issue on ARM as we only flag the need for switch
> in switch_mm(). We may be able to remove the irqs_disabled() check if we
> are always guaranteed the final call. But I'll follow up on the first
> patch, didn't get to read it in detail.
 
Ok, please do so. It would be good if we can use a common hook.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.