Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-107151-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:09:11 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jasowang@redhat.com,
	xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, yihyu@redhat.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, mochs@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_ring: Fix the stale index in available ring
Message-ID: <20240319030505-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20240314074923.426688-1-gshan@redhat.com>
 <20240318165924.GA1824@willie-the-truck>
 <35a6bcef-27cf-4626-a41d-9ec0a338fe28@redhat.com>
 <20240319020905-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <9b3030d1-cb2c-4ce0-8b24-1074b616fc84@redhat.com>
 <20240319024025-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <d8387677-7025-4daa-b8b5-5a8f24a671d5@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d8387677-7025-4daa-b8b5-5a8f24a671d5@redhat.com>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:49:50PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> 
> On 3/19/24 16:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:38:49PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > > On 3/19/24 16:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > > > index 49299b1f9ec7..7d852811c912 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > > > @@ -687,9 +687,15 @@ static inline int virtqueue_add_split(struct virtqueue *_vq,
> > > > > > >     	avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
> > > > > > >     	vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, head);
> > > > > > > -	/* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose the
> > > > > > > -	 * new available array entries. */
> > > > > > > -	virtio_wmb(vq->weak_barriers);
> > > > > > > +	/*
> > > > > > > +	 * Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose
> > > > > > > +	 * the new available array entries. virtio_wmb() should be enough
> > > > > > > +	 * to ensuere the order theoretically. However, a stronger barrier
> > > > > > > +	 * is needed by ARM64. Otherwise, the stale data can be observed
> > > > > > > +	 * by the host (vhost). A stronger barrier should work for other
> > > > > > > +	 * architectures, but performance loss is expected.
> > > > > > > +	 */
> > > > > > > +	virtio_mb(false);
> > > > > > >     	vq->split.avail_idx_shadow++;
> > > > > > >     	vq->split.vring.avail->idx = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > > > > > >     						vq->split.avail_idx_shadow);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Replacing a DMB with a DSB is _very_ unlikely to be the correct solution
> > > > > > here, especially when ordering accesses to coherent memory.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In practice, either the larger timing different from the DSB or the fact
> > > > > > that you're going from a Store->Store barrier to a full barrier is what
> > > > > > makes things "work" for you. Have you tried, for example, a DMB SY
> > > > > > (e.g. via __smb_mb()).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We definitely shouldn't take changes like this without a proper
> > > > > > explanation of what is going on.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for your comments, Will.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, DMB should work for us. However, it seems this instruction has issues on
> > > > > NVidia's grace-hopper. It's hard for me to understand how DMB and DSB works
> > > > > from hardware level. I agree it's not the solution to replace DMB with DSB
> > > > > before we fully understand the root cause.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I tried the possible replacement like below. __smp_mb() can avoid the issue like
> > > > > __mb() does. __ndelay(10) can avoid the issue, but __ndelay(9) doesn't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > static inline int virtqueue_add_split(struct virtqueue *_vq, ...)
> > > > > {
> > > > >       :
> > > > >           /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx until they
> > > > >            * do sync). */
> > > > >           avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
> > > > >           vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, head);
> > > > > 
> > > > >           /* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose the
> > > > >            * new available array entries. */
> > > > >           // Broken: virtio_wmb(vq->weak_barriers);
> > > > >           // Broken: __dma_mb();
> > > > >           // Work:   __mb();
> > > > >           // Work:   __smp_mb();
> > > > >           // Work:   __ndelay(100);
> > > > >           // Work:   __ndelay(10);
> > > > >           // Broken: __ndelay(9);
> > > > > 
> > > > >          vq->split.avail_idx_shadow++;
> > > > >           vq->split.vring.avail->idx = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > > > >                                                   vq->split.avail_idx_shadow);
> > > > 
> > > > What if you stick __ndelay here?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >         /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx until they
> > >           * do sync). */
> > >          avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
> > >          vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, head);
> > > 
> > >          /* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose the
> > >           * new available array entries. */
> > >          virtio_wmb(vq->weak_barriers);
> > >          vq->split.avail_idx_shadow++;
> > >          vq->split.vring.avail->idx = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > >                                                  vq->split.avail_idx_shadow);
> > >          /* Try __ndelay(x) here as Michael suggested
> > >           *
> > >           * Work:      __ndelay(200);    possiblly make it hard to reproduce
> > >           * Broken:    __ndelay(100);
> > >           * Broken:    __ndelay(20);
> > >           * Broken:    __ndelay(10);
> > >           */
> > >          __ndelay(200);
> > 
> > So we see that just changing the timing masks the race.
> > What are you using on the host side? vhost or qemu?
> > 
> 
> __ndelay(200) may make the issue harder to be reproduce as I understand.
> More delays here will give vhost relief, reducing the race.
> 
> The issue is only reproducible when vhost is turned on. Otherwise, we
> aren't able to hit the issue.
> 
>    -netdev tap,id=vnet0,vhost=true,script=/etc/qemu-ifup,downscript=/etc/qemu-ifdown \
>    -device virtio-net-pci,bus=pcie.8,netdev=vnet0,mac=52:54:00:f1:26:b0


Given it's vhost, it's also possible that the issue is host side.
I wonder what happens if we stick a delay or a stronger barrier
in vhost.c - either here:

        /* Make sure buffer is written before we update index. */
        smp_wmb();      


or here:

                /* Only get avail ring entries after they have been
                 * exposed by guest.
                 */
                smp_rmb();

?


> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >           vq->num_added++;
> > > > > 
> > > > >           pr_debug("Added buffer head %i to %p\n", head, vq);
> > > > >           END_USE(vq);
> > > > >           :
> > > > > }
> > > > > 
> > > > > I also tried to measure the consumed time for various barrier-relative instructions using
> > > > > ktime_get_ns() which should have consumed most of the time. __smb_mb() is slower than
> > > > > __smp_wmb() but faster than __mb()
> > > > > 
> > > > >       Instruction           Range of used time in ns
> > > > >       ----------------------------------------------
> > > > >       __smp_wmb()           [32  1128032]
> > > > >       __smp_mb()            [32  1160096]
> > > > >       __mb()                [32  1162496]
> > > > > 
> 
> Thanks,
> Gavin