From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Cc: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
charante@codeaurora.org,
Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/26] Speculative page faults
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 16:51:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b8ae1b0-39a3-7e83-589d-0bb4263b0a99@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C41F3B5.5030700@huawei.com>
Le 18/01/2019 à 16:41, zhong jiang a écrit :
> On 2019/1/18 17:29, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> Le 17/01/2019 à 16:51, zhong jiang a écrit :
>>> On 2019/1/16 19:41, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2019 1:54 PM, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> Le 14/01/2019 à 14:19, Vinayak Menon a écrit :
>>>>>> On 1/11/2019 9:13 PM, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Laurent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are observing an issue with speculative page fault with the following test code on ARM64 (4.14 kernel, 8 cores).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the patch below, we don't hit the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:06:34 +0530
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] mm: flush stale tlb entries on speculative write fault
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is observed that the following scenario results in
>>>>>> threads A and B of process 1 blocking on pthread_mutex_lock
>>>>>> forever after few iterations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
>>>>>> Process 1, Process 1, Process 1,
>>>>>> Thread A Thread B Thread C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while (1) { while (1) { while(1) {
>>>>>> pthread_mutex_lock(l) pthread_mutex_lock(l) fork
>>>>>> pthread_mutex_unlock(l) pthread_mutex_unlock(l) }
>>>>>> } }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When from thread C, copy_one_pte write-protects the parent pte
>>>>>> (of lock l), stale tlb entries can exist with write permissions
>>>>>> on one of the CPUs at least. This can create a problem if one
>>>>>> of the threads A or B hits the write fault. Though dup_mmap calls
>>>>>> flush_tlb_mm after copy_page_range, since speculative page fault
>>>>>> does not take mmap_sem it can proceed further fixing a fault soon
>>>>>> after CPU 3 does ptep_set_wrprotect. But the CPU with stale tlb
>>>>>> entry can still modify old_page even after it is copied to
>>>>>> new_page by wp_page_copy, thus causing a corruption.
>>>>> Nice catch and thanks for your investigation!
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a real synchronization issue here between copy_page_range() and the speculative page fault handler. I didn't get it on PowerVM since the TLB are flushed when arch_exit_lazy_mode() is called in copy_page_range() but now, I can get it when running on x86_64.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/memory.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> index 52080e4..1ea168ff 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> @@ -4507,6 +4507,13 @@ int __handle_speculative_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
>>>>>> return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Discard tlb entries created before ptep_set_wrprotect
>>>>>> + * in copy_one_pte
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE && !pte_write(vmf.orig_pte))
>>>>>> + flush_tlb_page(vmf.vma, address);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> mem_cgroup_oom_enable();
>>>>>> ret = handle_pte_fault(&vmf);
>>>>>> mem_cgroup_oom_disable();
>>>>> Your patch is fixing the race but I'm wondering about the cost of these tlb flushes. Here we are flushing on a per page basis (architecture like x86_64 are smarter and flush more pages) but there is a request to flush a range of tlb entries each time a cow page is newly touched. I think there could be some bad impact here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another option would be to flush the range in copy_pte_range() before unlocking the page table lock. This will flush entries flush_tlb_mm() would later handle in dup_mmap() but that will be called once per fork per cow VMA.
>>>>
>>>> But wouldn't this cause an unnecessary impact if most of the COW pages remain untouched (which I assume would be the usual case) and thus do not create a fault ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I tried the attached patch which seems to fix the issue on x86_64. Could you please give it a try on arm64 ?
>>>>>
>>>> Your patch works fine on arm64 with a minor change. Thanks Laurent.
>>> Hi, Vinayak and Laurent
>>>
>>> I think the below change will impact the performance significantly. Becuase most of process has many
>>> vmas with cow flags. Flush the tlb in advance is not the better way to avoid the issue and it will
>>> call the flush_tlb_mm later.
>>>
>>> I think we can try the following way to do.
>>>
>>> vm_write_begin(vma)
>>> copy_pte_range
>>> vm_write_end(vma)
>>>
>>> The speculative page fault will return to grap the mmap_sem to run the nromal path.
>>> Any thought?
>>
>> Hi Zhong,
>>
>> I agree that flushing the TLB could have a bad impact on the performance, but tagging the VMA when copy_pte_range() is not fixing the issue as the VMA must be flagged until the PTE are flushed.
>>
>> Here is what happens:
>>
>> CPU A CPU B CPU C
>> fork()
>> copy_pte_range()
>> set PTE rdonly
>> got to next VMA...
>> . PTE is seen rdonly PTE still writable
>> . thread is writing to page
>> . -> page fault
>> . copy the page Thread writes to page
>> . . -> no page fault
>> . update the PTE
>> . flush TLB for that PTE
>> flush TLB PTE are now rdonly
>>
>> So the write done by the CPU C is interfering with the page copy operation done by CPU B, leading to the data corruption.
>>
> I want to know the case if the CPU B has finished in front of the CPU C that the data still is vaild ?
If the CPU B has done the flush TLB then the CPU C will write data to
the right page. If the CPU B has not yet done the flush of the TLB as
the time the CPU C is writing data, then this roughly the same issue.
Anyway this is fixed with the patch I'm about to sent for testing on arm64.
Cheers,
Laurent.
>
> This is to say, the old_page will be changed from other cpu because of the access from other cpu.
>
> Maybe this is a stupid qestion :-)
>
> Thanks,
> zhong jiang.
>> Flushing the PTE in copy_pte_range() is fixing the issue as the CPU C is seeing the PTE as rdonly earlier. But this impacts performance.
>>
>> Another option, I'll work on is to flag _all the COW eligible_ VMA before starting copying them and until the PTE are flushed on the CPU A.
>> This way when the CPU B will page fault the speculative handler will abort because the VMA is in the way to be touched.
>>
>> But I need to ensure that all the calls to copy_pte_range() are handling this correctly.
>>
>> Laurent.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-18 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-11 15:43 Vinayak Menon
2019-01-14 13:19 ` Vinayak Menon
2019-01-15 8:24 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-16 11:41 ` Vinayak Menon
2019-01-16 13:31 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-16 11:41 ` Vinayak Menon
2019-01-17 15:51 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-17 15:51 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-18 9:29 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-18 15:41 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-18 15:41 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-18 15:51 ` Laurent Dufour [this message]
2019-01-18 16:24 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-19 17:05 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-19 17:05 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-22 16:22 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-22 16:22 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-24 8:20 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-25 12:32 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-25 12:32 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-28 8:59 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-28 14:09 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-28 14:09 ` zhong jiang
2019-01-28 15:45 ` Laurent Dufour
2019-01-29 15:40 ` zhong jiang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-05-17 11:06 Laurent Dufour
2018-05-28 5:23 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-05-28 7:51 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-05-28 8:22 ` Haiyan Song
2018-05-28 8:54 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-05-28 11:04 ` Wang, Kemi
2018-06-11 7:49 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-06-11 15:15 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-06-19 9:16 ` Haiyan Song
2018-07-02 8:59 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-07-04 3:23 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-07-04 7:51 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-07-11 17:05 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-07-13 3:56 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-07-17 9:36 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-08-03 6:36 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-08-03 6:45 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-08-22 14:23 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-09-18 6:42 ` Song, HaiyanX
2018-11-05 10:42 ` Balbir Singh
2018-11-05 16:08 ` Laurent Dufour
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8b8ae1b0-39a3-7e83-589d-0bb4263b0a99@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=charante@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=opensource.ganesh@gmail.com \
--cc=vinmenon@codeaurora.org \
--cc=zhongjiang@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox