Linux Virtualization - Mar 2019 - [RFC PATCH V2 5/5] vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:50:36PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> On 2019/3/8 ??3:16, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:56:45PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:18:12AM -0500, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > +static const struct mmu_notifier_ops
vhost_mmu_notifier_ops = {
> > > > > +	.invalidate_range = vhost_invalidate_range,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > >   void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> > > > >   		    struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, int nvqs, int
iov_limit)
> > > > >   {
> > > > I also wonder here: when page is write protected then
> > > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked.
> > > > 
> > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls
> > > > 
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
> > > > 
> > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
> > > > 
> > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is
write-protected since you
> > > > didn't install start/end notifiers. Note that end
notifier can be called
> > > > with page locked, so it's not as straight-forward as
just adding a call.
> > > > Writing into a write-protected page isn't a good idea.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that documentation says:
> > > > 	it is fine to delay the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range
> > > > 	call to mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the
page table lock.
> > > > implying it's called just later.
> > > OK I missed the fact that _end actually calls
> > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range internally. So that part is fine
but the
> > > fact that you are trying to take page lock under VQ mutex and
take same
> > > mutex within notifier probably means it's broken for ksm and
rmap at
> > > least since these call invalidate with lock taken.
> > Yes this lock inversion needs more thoughts.
> > 
> > > And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex
under
> > > the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why.
> > Yes, the problem then is the ->invalidate_page is called then under
PT
> > lock so it cannot take mutex, you also cannot take the page_lock, it
> > can at most take a spinlock or trylock_page.
> > 
> > So it must switch back to the _start/_end methods unless you rewrite
> > the locking.
> > 
> > The difference with _start/_end, is that ->invalidate_range avoids
the
> > _start callback basically, but to avoid the _start callback safely, it
> > has to be called in between the ptep_clear_flush and the set_pte_at
> > whenever the pfn changes like during a COW. So it cannot be coalesced
> > in a single TLB flush that invalidates all sptes in a range like we
> > prefer for performance reasons for example in KVM. It also cannot
> > sleep.
> > 
> > In short ->invalidate_range must be really fast (it shouldn't
require
> > to send IPI to all other CPUs like KVM may require during an
> > invalidate_range_start) and it must not sleep, in order to prefer it
> > to _start/_end.
> > 
> > I.e. the invalidate of the secondary MMU that walks the linux
> > pagetables in hardware (in vhost case with GUP in software) has to
> > happen while the linux pagetable is zero, otherwise a concurrent
> > hardware pagetable lookup could re-instantiate a mapping to the old
> > page in between the set_pte_at and the invalidate_range_end (which
> > internally calls ->invalidate_range). Jerome documented it nicely
in
> > Documentation/vm/mmu_notifier.rst .
> 
> 
> Right, I've actually gone through this several times but some details
were
> missed by me obviously.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Now you don't really walk the pagetable in hardware in vhost, but
if
> > you use gup_fast after usemm() it's similar.
> > 
> > For vhost the invalidate would be really fast, there are no IPI to
> > deliver at all, the problem is just the mutex.
> 
> 
> Yes. A possible solution is to introduce a valid flag for VA. Vhost may
only
> try to access kernel VA when it was valid. Invalidate_range_start() will
> clear this under the protection of the vq mutex when it can block. Then
> invalidate_range_end() then can clear this flag. An issue is blockable is?
> always false for range_end().
> 
Note that there can be multiple asynchronous concurrent invalidate_range
callbacks. So a flag does not work but a counter of number of active
invalidation would. See how KSM is doing it for instance in kvm_main.c

The pattern for this kind of thing is:
    my_invalidate_range_start(start,end) {
        ...
        if (mystruct_overlap(mystruct, start, end)) {
            mystruct_lock();
            mystruct->invalidate_count++;
            ...
            mystruct_unlock();
        }
    }

    my_invalidate_range_end(start,end) {
        ...
        if (mystruct_overlap(mystruct, start, end)) {
            mystruct_lock();
            mystruct->invalidate_count--;
            ...
            mystruct_unlock();
        }
    }

    my_access_va(mystruct) {
    again:
        wait_on(!mystruct->invalidate_count)
        mystruct_lock();
        if (mystruct->invalidate_count) {
            mystruct_unlock();
            goto again;
        }
        GUP();
        ...
        mystruct_unlock();
    }

Cheers,
J?r?me

On 2019/3/8 ??10:58, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:50:36PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/3/8 ??3:16, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:56:45PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:18:12AM -0500, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> +static const struct mmu_notifier_ops
vhost_mmu_notifier_ops = {
>>>>>> +	.invalidate_range = vhost_invalidate_range,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>    void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>>>>>>    		    struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, int nvqs, int
iov_limit)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>> I also wonder here: when page is write protected then
>>>>> it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. mm/ksm.c calls
>>>>>
>>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and
>>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call
>>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is
write-protected since you
>>>>> didn't install start/end notifiers. Note that end
notifier can be called
>>>>> with page locked, so it's not as straight-forward as
just adding a call.
>>>>> Writing into a write-protected page isn't a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that documentation says:
>>>>> 	it is fine to delay the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range
>>>>> 	call to mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the
page table lock.
>>>>> implying it's called just later.
>>>> OK I missed the fact that _end actually calls
>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range internally. So that part is fine
but the
>>>> fact that you are trying to take page lock under VQ mutex and
take same
>>>> mutex within notifier probably means it's broken for ksm
and rmap at
>>>> least since these call invalidate with lock taken.
>>> Yes this lock inversion needs more thoughts.
>>>
>>>> And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex
under
>>>> the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why.
>>> Yes, the problem then is the ->invalidate_page is called then
under PT
>>> lock so it cannot take mutex, you also cannot take the page_lock,
it
>>> can at most take a spinlock or trylock_page.
>>>
>>> So it must switch back to the _start/_end methods unless you
rewrite
>>> the locking.
>>>
>>> The difference with _start/_end, is that ->invalidate_range
avoids the
>>> _start callback basically, but to avoid the _start callback safely,
it
>>> has to be called in between the ptep_clear_flush and the set_pte_at
>>> whenever the pfn changes like during a COW. So it cannot be
coalesced
>>> in a single TLB flush that invalidates all sptes in a range like we
>>> prefer for performance reasons for example in KVM. It also cannot
>>> sleep.
>>>
>>> In short ->invalidate_range must be really fast (it
shouldn't require
>>> to send IPI to all other CPUs like KVM may require during an
>>> invalidate_range_start) and it must not sleep, in order to prefer
it
>>> to _start/_end.
>>>
>>> I.e. the invalidate of the secondary MMU that walks the linux
>>> pagetables in hardware (in vhost case with GUP in software) has to
>>> happen while the linux pagetable is zero, otherwise a concurrent
>>> hardware pagetable lookup could re-instantiate a mapping to the old
>>> page in between the set_pte_at and the invalidate_range_end (which
>>> internally calls ->invalidate_range). Jerome documented it
nicely in
>>> Documentation/vm/mmu_notifier.rst .
>>
>> Right, I've actually gone through this several times but some
details were
>> missed by me obviously.
>>
>>
>>> Now you don't really walk the pagetable in hardware in vhost,
but if
>>> you use gup_fast after usemm() it's similar.
>>>
>>> For vhost the invalidate would be really fast, there are no IPI to
>>> deliver at all, the problem is just the mutex.
>>
>> Yes. A possible solution is to introduce a valid flag for VA. Vhost may
only
>> try to access kernel VA when it was valid. Invalidate_range_start()
will
>> clear this under the protection of the vq mutex when it can block. Then
>> invalidate_range_end() then can clear this flag. An issue is blockable
is
>> always false for range_end().
>>
> Note that there can be multiple asynchronous concurrent invalidate_range
> callbacks. So a flag does not work but a counter of number of active
> invalidation would. See how KSM is doing it for instance in kvm_main.c
>
> The pattern for this kind of thing is:
>      my_invalidate_range_start(start,end) {
>          ...
>          if (mystruct_overlap(mystruct, start, end)) {
>              mystruct_lock();
>              mystruct->invalidate_count++;
>              ...
>              mystruct_unlock();
>          }
>      }
>
>      my_invalidate_range_end(start,end) {
>          ...
>          if (mystruct_overlap(mystruct, start, end)) {
>              mystruct_lock();
>              mystruct->invalidate_count--;
>              ...
>              mystruct_unlock();
>          }
>      }
>
>      my_access_va(mystruct) {
>      again:
>          wait_on(!mystruct->invalidate_count)
>          mystruct_lock();
>          if (mystruct->invalidate_count) {
>              mystruct_unlock();
>              goto again;
>          }
>          GUP();
>          ...
>          mystruct_unlock();
>      }
>
> Cheers,
> J?r?me

Yes, this should work.

Thanks