Alistair Popple
2021-May-19 10:49 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access
On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 7:16:38 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote:> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:35PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: > > [...] > > > +static bool try_to_protect(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm, > > + unsigned long address, void *arg) > > +{ > > + struct ttp_args ttp = { > > + .mm = mm, > > + .address = address, > > + .arg = arg, > > + .valid = false, > > + }; > > + struct rmap_walk_control rwc = { > > + .rmap_one = try_to_protect_one, > > + .done = page_not_mapped, > > + .anon_lock = page_lock_anon_vma_read, > > + .arg = &ttp, > > + }; > > + > > + /* > > + * Restrict to anonymous pages for now to avoid potential writeback > > + * issues. > > + */ > > + if (!PageAnon(page)) > > + return false; > > + > > + /* > > + * During exec, a temporary VMA is setup and later moved. > > + * The VMA is moved under the anon_vma lock but not the > > + * page tables leading to a race where migration cannot > > + * find the migration ptes. Rather than increasing the > > + * locking requirements of exec(), migration skips > > + * temporary VMAs until after exec() completes. > > + */ > > + if (!PageKsm(page) && PageAnon(page)) > > + rwc.invalid_vma = invalid_migration_vma; > > + > > + rmap_walk(page, &rwc); > > + > > + return ttp.valid && !page_mapcount(page); > > +} > > I raised a question in the other thread regarding fork(): > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YKQjmtMo+YQGx%2FwZ at t490s/ > > While I suddenly noticed that we may have similar issues even if we fork() > before creating the ptes. > > In that case, we may see multiple read-only ptes pointing to the same page. > We will convert all of them into device exclusive read ptes in rmap_walk() > above, however how do we guarantee after all COW done in the parent and all > the childs processes, the device owned page will be returned to the parent?I assume you are talking about a fork() followed by a call to make_device_exclusive()? I think this should be ok because make_device_exclusive() always calls GUP with FOLL_WRITE both to break COW and because a device performing atomic operations needs to write to the page. I suppose a comment here highlighting the need to break COW to avoid this scenario would be useful though.> E.g., if parent accesses the page earlier than the children processes > (actually, as long as not the last one), do_wp_page() will do COW for parent > on this page because refcount(page)>1, then the page seems to get lost to a > random child too.. > > To resolve all these complexity, not sure whether try_to_protect() could > enforce VM_DONTCOPY (needs madvise MADV_DONTFORK in the user app), meanwhile > make sure mapcount(page)==1 before granting the page to the device, so that > this will guarantee this mm owns this page forever, I think? It'll > simplify fork() too as a side effect, since VM_DONTCOPY vma go away when > fork. > > -- > Peter Xu
Peter Xu
2021-May-19 12:24 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:49:01PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 7:16:38 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:35PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > +static bool try_to_protect(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm, > > > + unsigned long address, void *arg) > > > +{ > > > + struct ttp_args ttp = { > > > + .mm = mm, > > > + .address = address, > > > + .arg = arg, > > > + .valid = false, > > > + }; > > > + struct rmap_walk_control rwc = { > > > + .rmap_one = try_to_protect_one, > > > + .done = page_not_mapped, > > > + .anon_lock = page_lock_anon_vma_read, > > > + .arg = &ttp, > > > + }; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Restrict to anonymous pages for now to avoid potential writeback > > > + * issues. > > > + */ > > > + if (!PageAnon(page)) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * During exec, a temporary VMA is setup and later moved. > > > + * The VMA is moved under the anon_vma lock but not the > > > + * page tables leading to a race where migration cannot > > > + * find the migration ptes. Rather than increasing the > > > + * locking requirements of exec(), migration skips > > > + * temporary VMAs until after exec() completes. > > > + */ > > > + if (!PageKsm(page) && PageAnon(page)) > > > + rwc.invalid_vma = invalid_migration_vma; > > > + > > > + rmap_walk(page, &rwc); > > > + > > > + return ttp.valid && !page_mapcount(page); > > > +} > > > > I raised a question in the other thread regarding fork(): > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YKQjmtMo+YQGx%2FwZ at t490s/ > > > > While I suddenly noticed that we may have similar issues even if we fork() > > before creating the ptes. > > > > In that case, we may see multiple read-only ptes pointing to the same page. > > We will convert all of them into device exclusive read ptes in rmap_walk() > > above, however how do we guarantee after all COW done in the parent and all > > the childs processes, the device owned page will be returned to the parent? > > I assume you are talking about a fork() followed by a call to > make_device_exclusive()? I think this should be ok because > make_device_exclusive() always calls GUP with FOLL_WRITE both to break COW and > because a device performing atomic operations needs to write to the page. I > suppose a comment here highlighting the need to break COW to avoid this > scenario would be useful though.Indeed, sorry for the false alarm! Yes it would be great to mention that too. -- Peter Xu
Alistair Popple
2021-May-19 12:46 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access
On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 10:24:27 PM AEST Peter Xu wrote:> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:49:01PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: > > On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 7:16:38 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote: > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:35PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > +static bool try_to_protect(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm, > > > > + unsigned long address, void *arg) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct ttp_args ttp = { > > > > + .mm = mm, > > > > + .address = address, > > > > + .arg = arg, > > > > + .valid = false, > > > > + }; > > > > + struct rmap_walk_control rwc = { > > > > + .rmap_one = try_to_protect_one, > > > > + .done = page_not_mapped, > > > > + .anon_lock = page_lock_anon_vma_read, > > > > + .arg = &ttp, > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Restrict to anonymous pages for now to avoid potential > > > > writeback > > > > + * issues. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (!PageAnon(page)) > > > > + return false; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * During exec, a temporary VMA is setup and later moved. > > > > + * The VMA is moved under the anon_vma lock but not the > > > > + * page tables leading to a race where migration cannot > > > > + * find the migration ptes. Rather than increasing the > > > > + * locking requirements of exec(), migration skips > > > > + * temporary VMAs until after exec() completes. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (!PageKsm(page) && PageAnon(page)) > > > > + rwc.invalid_vma = invalid_migration_vma; > > > > + > > > > + rmap_walk(page, &rwc); > > > > + > > > > + return ttp.valid && !page_mapcount(page); > > > > +} > > > > > > I raised a question in the other thread regarding fork(): > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YKQjmtMo+YQGx%2FwZ at t490s/ > > > > > > While I suddenly noticed that we may have similar issues even if we > > > fork() > > > before creating the ptes. > > > > > > In that case, we may see multiple read-only ptes pointing to the same > > > page. > > > We will convert all of them into device exclusive read ptes in > > > rmap_walk() > > > above, however how do we guarantee after all COW done in the parent and > > > all > > > the childs processes, the device owned page will be returned to the > > > parent? > > > > I assume you are talking about a fork() followed by a call to > > make_device_exclusive()? I think this should be ok because > > make_device_exclusive() always calls GUP with FOLL_WRITE both to break COW > > and because a device performing atomic operations needs to write to the > > page. I suppose a comment here highlighting the need to break COW to > > avoid this scenario would be useful though. > > Indeed, sorry for the false alarm! Yes it would be great to mention that > too.No problem! Thanks for the comments.> -- > Peter Xu