From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DE9C32750 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86B5206E0 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D86B5206E0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 43C5B8E0005; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3EDC38E0002; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2DB988E0005; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CEF8E0002 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id o16so57566323qtj.6 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=/u+7PBGONpChj9bsCyMR6/PNwLHKML+JATmP8hgGVAs=; b=NGmb1Tn2Bve7AgPDBL8lv+gtYHM+zgjZdrK7eowcoWs3Nw5oLxSsjw5kg/Cni+Ryz6 nBaf3ddh+eqgy7Y8e6jFP0BHKm/Kd1CfEJZOqeIespknw6xhVgfFzPBTTEOph4eEn/fX SwEENHAKL8PfDIELmgSDgWo94cXI/K/l5gW23fc0Cc98Z88CN8LF6CXpyUj2u4P4fJIP ZEWhJH7TAnxi0uTAjLdI1VSDWofu34hkbCjyGaEv5UUlzm0MzcDe55gsS/BCX7V1Gf73 xtdYlxHO6Ae58wIJ/wdG69BfpAMoGiSz09iePaBuMgZkwQeotf6w/uEHwBLVZyDaeXof LcKg== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURziQD34GJOq7Rk4liFstyHGPhgmPZpUcIQJ9UJ9zHgOEu63yL KcGlbc2m8mdotrfEEpEsjQBOXPEgfJo/vxEQzHPE9SlmfLv/5sMDMgbsY9UKgnZ1Gfv3xUGU+19 8gsZ9EO++Y8YpbWktYfiMOVcgvt/LSL14J1om3WdsNo1gFT45QD/mbqydA2UIBAqQCw== X-Received: by 2002:aed:2961:: with SMTP id s88mr79640684qtd.120.1564472705775; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyTApot1QSPkNHZuZ+WEnYEFAevlbdmOPN74h1j1ti+9CaEJcILidf068OMbigjdQ4R5Zgr X-Received: by 2002:aed:2961:: with SMTP id s88mr79640649qtd.120.1564472705004; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:45:05 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564472704; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=O/jEFb6peVNtc/PSgXlvDz6hQimNxxtk7zwVVzZbJVJS/aPa7C5DpxRRGNkzoWVgdE Y8eJ3OcTTp8bvyeoTRdu59oq8eX7kPU2coT8j57iHFjldGx/4UV5CkXQL4e4ppBUfaIf yd09Qc4KEiHePm3pRK4N7Z7dcnMffHW8davK6AXb+lvU1QLK/ot6UDTZfHstq0I3R4/T HHfDvGx4E81+GZJiqcYjVAeK0CONjZRyUI5k/ZHTz3b4C9Y9G70mLuseRszHPV0olO2b P0kwFMFG9a/nWIVIogqX6Nfu+o++rh4Rucle1R4Hr29sVp6LUcKo2tkNnFDTaJnH94vc 0Iog== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=/u+7PBGONpChj9bsCyMR6/PNwLHKML+JATmP8hgGVAs=; b=sGpJRawwxDaMQNEku6ulQfP3YZ7rGwvBlXQee2w5cn5wWCrlzw6mAsWzMV4ljS1pHL 8i5gLvxJk7q5OZNFEMI7EgO/HI5I8S+ST959JYytlEu2DXvNUxVEtJ/vHkfKhmwAwY5H 7xhjTDTOHDAnQUp9xS2BqXBSOqgrpvJnc0PCY7PScKFt1+iWpzGJ5wXAL92c1cFEzMcK XVii4tAvTt5IVIXp6TgxdAeSuNM1XI1uQVlefBI+CnyKy/NFMzH5pEvmpD/R9841tv5z q5qSdw1fri3gEHyMKekslSjxBi8C52dXHvEMh/BxrJwPJknfaDPAEsHdWDNXNS4y1R9C kWqw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q9si36018310qtj.4.2019.07.30.00.45.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD0BC027339; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.185] (ovpn-12-185.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.185]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA805C1A1; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: syzbot , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org References: <11802a8a-ce41-f427-63d5-b6a4cf96bb3f@redhat.com> <20190726074644-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5cc94f15-b229-a290-55f3-8295266edb2b@redhat.com> <20190726082837-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190726094756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <0792ee09-b4b7-673c-2251-e5e0ce0fbe32@redhat.com> <20190729045127-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4d43c094-44ed-dbac-b863-48fc3d754378@redhat.com> <20190729104028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <96b1d67c-3a8d-1224-e9f0-5f7725a3dc10@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:44:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190729104028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:45:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2019/7/29 下午10:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:24:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2019/7/29 下午4:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:54:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2019/7/26 下午9:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>> Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks >>>>>>> last try). >>>>>> Ok, I play a little with this. And it works so far. Will do more testing >>>>>> tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> One reason could be I switch to use get_user_pages_fast() to >>>>>> __get_user_pages_fast() which doesn't need mmap_sem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> OK that sounds good. If we also set a flag to make >>>>> vhost_exceeds_weight exit, then I think it will be all good. >>>> After some experiments, I came up two methods: >>>> >>>> 1) switch to use vq->mutex, then we must take the vq lock during range >>>> checking (but I don't see obvious slowdown for 16vcpus + 16queues). Setting >>>> flags during weight check should work but it still can't address the worst >>>> case: wait for the page to be swapped in. Is this acceptable? >>>> >>>> 2) using current RCU but replace synchronize_rcu() with vhost_work_flush(). >>>> The worst case is the same as 1) but we can check range without holding any >>>> locks. >>>> >>>> Which one did you prefer? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> I would rather we start with 1 and switch to 2 after we >>> can show some gain. >>> >>> But the worst case needs to be addressed. >> >> Yes. >> >> >>> How about sending a signal to >>> the vhost thread? We will need to fix up error handling (I think that >>> at the moment it will error out in that case, handling this as EFAULT - >>> and we don't want to drop packets if we can help it, and surely not >>> enter any error states. In particular it might be especially tricky if >>> we wrote into userspace memory and are now trying to log the write. >>> I guess we can disable the optimization if log is enabled?). >> >> This may work but requires a lot of changes. > I agree. > >> And actually it's the price of >> using vq mutex. > Not sure what's meant here. I mean if we use vq mutex, it means the critical section was increased and we need to deal with swapping then. > >> Actually, the critical section should be rather small, e.g >> just inside memory accessors. > Also true. > >> I wonder whether or not just do synchronize our self like: >> >> static void inline vhost_inc_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) >> { >>         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref); >> >>         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref + 1); >> smp_rmb(); >> } >> >> static void inline vhost_dec_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) >> { >>         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref); >> >> smp_wmb(); >>         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref - 1); >> } >> >> static void inline vhost_wait_for_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) >> { >>         while (READ_ONCE(vq->ref)); >> mb(); >> } > Looks good but I'd like to think of a strategy/existing lock that let us > block properly as opposed to spinning, that would be more friendly to > e.g. the realtime patch. Does it make sense to disable preemption in the critical section? Then we don't need to block and we have a deterministic time spent on memory accssors? > >> Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead? >> >> Thanks > These are cheaper on x86, yes. Will use this. Thanks >