Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/hmm: use reference counting for HMM struct

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 2/20/19 3:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 03:47:50PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 1/29/19 8:54 AM, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Every time i read the code to check that the HMM structure does not
>>> vanish before it should thanks to the many lock protecting its removal
>>> i get a headache. Switch to reference counting instead it is much
>>> easier to follow and harder to break. This also remove some code that
>>> is no longer needed with refcounting.
>>
>> Hi Jerome,
>>
>> That is an excellent idea. Some review comments below:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>    static int hmm_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>>>    			const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct hmm_update update;
>>> -	struct hmm *hmm = range->mm->hmm;
>>> +	struct hmm *hmm = hmm_get(range->mm);
>>> +	int ret;
>>>    	VM_BUG_ON(!hmm);
>>> +	/* Check if hmm_mm_destroy() was call. */
>>> +	if (hmm->mm == NULL)
>>> +		return 0;
>>
>> Let's delete that NULL check. It can't provide true protection. If there
>> is a way for that to race, we need to take another look at refcounting.
> 
> I will do a patch to delete the NULL check so that it is easier for
> Andrew. No need to respin.

(Did you miss my request to make hmm_get/hmm_put symmetric, though?)

> 
>> Is there a need for mmgrab()/mmdrop(), to keep the mm around while HMM
>> is using it?
> 
> It is already the case. The hmm struct holds a reference on the mm struct
> and the mirror struct holds a reference on the hmm struct hence the mirror
> struct holds a reference on the mm through the hmm struct.
> 
> 

OK, good. Yes, I guess the __mmu_notifier_register() call in hmm_register()
should get an mm_struct reference for us.

> 
>>>    	/* FIXME support hugetlb fs */
>>>    	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma) || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SPECIAL) ||
>>>    			vma_is_dax(vma)) {
>>>    		hmm_pfns_special(range);
>>> +		hmm_put(hmm);
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>>    	}
>>> @@ -910,6 +958,7 @@ int hmm_vma_fault(struct hmm_range *range, bool block)
>>>    		 * operations such has atomic access would not work.
>>>    		 */
>>>    		hmm_pfns_clear(range, range->pfns, range->start, range->end);
>>> +		hmm_put(hmm);
>>>    		return -EPERM;
>>>    	}
>>> @@ -945,7 +994,16 @@ int hmm_vma_fault(struct hmm_range *range, bool block)
>>>    		hmm_pfns_clear(range, &range->pfns[i], hmm_vma_walk.last,
>>>    			       range->end);
>>>    		hmm_vma_range_done(range);
>>> +		hmm_put(hmm);
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Transfer hmm reference to the range struct it will be drop
>>> +		 * inside the hmm_vma_range_done() function (which _must_ be
>>> +		 * call if this function return 0).
>>> +		 */
>>> +		range->hmm = hmm;
>>
>> Is that thread-safe? Is there anything preventing two or more threads from
>> changing range->hmm at the same time?
> 
> The range is provided by the driver and the driver should not change
> the hmm field nor should it use the range struct in multiple threads.
> If the driver do stupid things there is nothing i can do. Note that
> this code is removed latter in the serie.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jérôme
> 

OK, I see. That sounds good.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA