Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <94c3217d-df73-2b6b-21f0-95baf117c584@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:36:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/ksm: update stale comment in write_protect_page()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
References: <20220831083024.37138-1-david@redhat.com>
 <CAHbLzkqeDAnCdt3q4E2RZw64QEzVaO_pseR3VaoHUhB+rZFcZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4845ae71-b7dd-1707-ebc3-2eb3521e7fa0@redhat.com>
 <CAHbLzkoMMWAgai2bvgu7y5EAcKOhhx3gK+OA4v2+kOHBW4cauw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ab41f458-eb0f-5edb-ccab-643bf00d5110@redhat.com>
 <CAHbLzkpFqSBTv3HVye4UCKj93NPW8VRqCGZO1p5hk_wfNA_GtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkpFqSBTv3HVye4UCKj93NPW8VRqCGZO1p5hk_wfNA_GtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31.08.22 21:34, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:15 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 31.08.22 21:08, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 31.08.22 19:55, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:30 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comment is stale, because a TLB flush is no longer sufficient and
>>>>>> required to synchronize against concurrent GUP-fast. This used to be true
>>>>>> in the past, whereby a TLB flush would have implied an IPI on architectures
>>>>>> that support GUP-fast, resulting in GUP-fast that disables local interrupts
>>>>>> from completing before completing the flush.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm... it seems there might be problem for THP collapse IIUC. THP
>>>>> collapse clears and flushes pmd before doing anything on pte and
>>>>> relies on interrupt disable of fast GUP to serialize against fast GUP.
>>>>> But if TLB flush is no longer sufficient, then we may run into the
>>>>> below race IIUC:
>>>>>
>>>>>          CPU A                                                CPU B
>>>>> THP collapse                                             fast GUP
>>>>>
>>>>> gup_pmd_range() <-- see valid pmd
>>>>>
>>>>> gup_pte_range() <-- work on pte
>>>>> clear pmd and flush TLB
>>>>> __collapse_huge_page_isolate()
>>>>>     isolate page <-- before GUP bump refcount
>>>>>
>>>>>    pin the page
>>>>> __collapse_huge_page_copy()
>>>>>     copy data to huge page
>>>>>     clear pte (don't flush TLB)
>>>>> Install huge pmd for huge page
>>>>>
>>>>> return the obsolete page
>>>>
>>>> Hm, the is_refcount_suitable() check runs while the PTE hasn't been
>>>> cleared yet. And we don't check if the PMD changed once we're in
>>>> gup_pte_range().
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The comment most certainly should be stale as well -- unless there is
>>>> some kind of an implicit IPI broadcast being done.
>>>>
>>>> 2667f50e8b81 mentions: "The RCU page table free logic coupled with an
>>>> IPI broadcast on THP split (which is a rare event), allows one to
>>>> protect a page table walker by merely disabling the interrupts during
>>>> the walk."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not able to quickly locate that IPI broadcast -- maybe there is one
>>>> being done here (in collapse) as well?
>>>
>>> The TLB flush may call IPI. I'm supposed it is arch dependent, right?
>>> Some do use IPI, some may not.
>>
>> Right, and the whole idea of the RCU GUP-fast was to support
>> architectures that don't do it. x86-64 does it. IIRC, powerpc doesn't do
>> it -- but maybe it does so for PMDs?
> 
> It looks powerpc does issue IPI for pmd flush. But arm64 doesn't IIRC.
> 
> So maybe we should implement pmdp_collapse_flush() for those arches to
> issue IPI.

... or find another way to detect and handle this in GUP-fast?

Not sure if, for handling PMDs, it could be sufficient to propagate the
pmdp pointer + value and double check that the values didn't change.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb