Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock

[Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>]

Wei Wang wrote:
> >> @@ -162,20 +160,20 @@ static unsigned fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >>   			msleep(200);
> >>   			break;
> >>   		}
> >> -		set_page_pfns(vb, vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> >> -		vb->num_pages += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
> >> +		set_page_pfns(vb, pfns + num_pfns, page);
> >>   		if (!virtio_has_feature(vb->vdev,
> >>   					VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_DEFLATE_ON_OOM))
> >>   			adjust_managed_page_count(page, -1);
> >>   	}
> >>   
> >> -	num_allocated_pages = vb->num_pfns;
> >> +	mutex_lock(&vb->inflate_lock);
> >>   	/* Did we get any? */
> >> -	if (vb->num_pfns != 0)
> >> -		tell_host(vb, vb->inflate_vq);
> >> -	mutex_unlock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >> +	if (num_pfns != 0)
> >> +		tell_host(vb, vb->inflate_vq, pfns, num_pfns);
> >> +	mutex_unlock(&vb->inflate_lock);
> >> +	atomic64_add(num_pfns, &vb->num_pages);
> > Isn't this addition too late? If leak_balloon() is called due to
> > out_of_memory(), it will fail to find up to dated vb->num_pages value.
> 
> Not really. I think the old way of implementation above:
> "vb->num_pages += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE"
> isn't quite accurate, because "vb->num_page" should reflect the number of
> pages that have already been inflated, which means those pages have
> already been given to the host via "tell_host()".
> 
> If we update "vb->num_page" earlier before tell_host(), then it will 
> include the pages
> that haven't been given to the host, which I think shouldn't be counted 
> as inflated pages.
> 
> On the other hand, OOM will use leak_balloon() to release the pages that 
> should
> have already been inflated.

But leak_balloon() finds max inflated pages from vb->num_pages, doesn't it?

> 
> >>   
> >>   	/* We can only do one array worth at a time. */
> >> -	num = min(num, ARRAY_SIZE(vb->pfns));
> >> +	num = min_t(size_t, num, VIRTIO_BALLOON_ARRAY_PFNS_MAX);
> >>   
> >> -	mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >>   	/* We can't release more pages than taken */
> >> -	num = min(num, (size_t)vb->num_pages);
> >> -	for (vb->num_pfns = 0; vb->num_pfns < num;
> >> -	     vb->num_pfns += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE) {
> >> +	num = min_t(size_t, num, atomic64_read(&vb->num_pages));
> >> +	for (num_pfns = 0; num_pfns < num;
> >> +	     num_pfns += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE) {
> >>   		page = balloon_page_dequeue(vb_dev_info);
> > If balloon_page_dequeue() can be concurrently called by both host's request
> > and guest's OOM event, is (!dequeued_page) test in balloon_page_dequeue() safe?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the question. The "dequeue_page" is a local variable
> in the function, why would it be unsafe for two invocations (the shared
> b_dev_info->pages are operated under a lock)?

I'm not MM person nor virtio person. I'm commenting from point of view of
safe programming. My question is, isn't there possibility of hitting

	if (unlikely(list_empty(&b_dev_info->pages) &&
		     !b_dev_info->isolated_pages))
		BUG();

when things run concurrently.

Wei Wang wrote:
> On 10/22/2017 12:11 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> -	num_freed_pages = leak_balloon(vb, oom_pages);
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Don't deflate more than the number of inflated pages */
> >>> +	while (npages && atomic64_read(&vb->num_pages))
> >>> +		npages -= leak_balloon(vb, npages);
> > don't we need to abort if leak_balloon() returned 0 for some reason?
> 
> I don't think so. Returning 0 should be a normal case when the host tries
> to give back some pages to the guest, but there is no pages that have ever
> been inflated. For example, right after booting the guest, the host sends a
> deflating request to give the guest 1G memory, leak_balloon should return 0,
> and guest wouldn't get 1 more G memory.
> 
My question is, isn't there possibility of leak_balloon() returning 0 for
reasons other than vb->num_pages == 0 ? If yes, this can cause infinite loop
(i.e. lockups) when things run concurrently.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>