MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1431624680-20153-11-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
References: <1431624680-20153-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
	<1431624680-20153-11-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:49:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwCODeiXUPDR7-Y-=2xE2abmVuCnmVV=ezFqhO+JkaW=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/23] userfaultfd: add new syscall to provide memory externalization
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
        KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
        Sanidhya Kashyap <sanidhya.gatech@gmail.com>,
        zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@google.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1254
Lines: 27

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
> +static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> +                                          struct userfaultfd_wake_range *range)
> +{
> +       if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> +               __wake_userfault(ctx, range);
> +}

Pretty much every single time people use this "if
(waitqueue_active())" model, it tends to be a bug, because it means
that there is zero serialization with people who are just about to go
to sleep. It's fundamentally racy against all the "wait_event()" loops
that carefully do memory barriers between testing conditions and going
to sleep, because the memory barriers now don't exist on the waking
side.

So I'm making a new rule: if you use waitqueue_active(), I want an
explanation for why it's not racy with the waiter. A big comment about
the memory ordering, or about higher-level locks that are held by the
caller, or something.

                     Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/