Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <24863d8904c6e05e5dd48cab57db4274675ae654.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable: Uses counting
 method to skip serializing
From:   Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>,
        Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@linux.ibm.com>,
        Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:28:41 -0300
In-Reply-To: <1b39eaa7-751d-40bc-d3d7-41aaa15be42a@nvidia.com>
References: <20190920195047.7703-1-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
         <20190920195047.7703-12-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
         <1b39eaa7-751d-40bc-d3d7-41aaa15be42a@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256";
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-EbNtHEwclx7KXmENRZAu"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--=-EbNtHEwclx7KXmENRZAu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 13:11 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/20/19 12:50 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Skips slow part of serialize_against_pte_lookup if there is no running
> > lockless pagetable walk.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3=
s64/pgtable.c
> > index 13239b17a22c..41ca30269fa3 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ static void do_nothing(void *unused)
> >  void serialize_against_pte_lookup(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  {
> >  	smp_mb();
> > -	smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> > +	if (running_lockless_pgtbl_walk(mm))
> > +		smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> If you do this, then you are left without any synchronization. So it will
> have race conditions: a page table walk could begin right after the above
> check returns "false", and then code such as hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clea=
r()
> will continue on right away, under the false assumption that it has let
> all the current page table walks complete.
>=20
> The current code uses either interrupts or RCU to synchronize, and in
> either case, you end up scheduling something on each CPU. If you remove
> that entirely, I don't see anything left. ("Pure" atomic counting is not
> a synchronization technique all by itself.)
>=20
> thanks,

Hello John,
Thanks for the fast feedback.

See, before calling serialize_against_pte_lookup(), there is always an
update or clear on the pmd. So, if a page table walk begin right after
the check returns "false", there is no problem, since it will use the
updated pmd.

Think about serialize, on a process with a bunch of cpus. After you
check the last processor (wait part), there is no guarantee that the
first one is not starting a lockless pagetable walk.

The same mechanism protect both methods.

Does it make sense?

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras


--=-EbNtHEwclx7KXmENRZAu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=98u8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-EbNtHEwclx7KXmENRZAu--