Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1722720
| From | Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits |
| Date | 2017-08-29 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ujUdk-6Et-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <ujOrg-33K-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujOrg-33K-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujPnm-3Ci-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujTAC-6bu-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujU3D-6AB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:06:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Kirill did regress invalidate_page as it use to be call outside the > > spinlock and now it is call inside the spinlock thus reverting will > > introduce back a regression. > > Honestly, this MMU notifier thing has been nothing but a badly > designed mistake from beginning to end, and bad rules for what can > sleep and what can not are one fundamental problem. > > There are fundamentally two levels of VM locking, and those two levels > are not going to go away, and we're not budging on them: > > - there's the "virtual address" level, which can block. We have a > nice mmap_semaphore, and we guarantee that it's held for writing for > all changes to the virtual memory layout > > This is the "mmap/munmap" kind of granularity. The mmu callbacks at > *this* level are fine to block. > > - then there is the "page level" VM handling, and honestly, that > *fundamentally* uses a spinlock. If we look at a particular page, that > page is meaningless without the lock. Really. > > I honestly believe that any MMU callback at this level needs to be > atomic. Some of the absolutely *have* to be (that "change_pte", for > example). > > In that second case, we might have a "begin/end" surrounding the > actual page table walk. And that might sleep, but then it > *fundamentally* cannot actually be able some particular single page > or stable range. Because without the page table spinlock, no such > stability exists. It's purely a "we are not going to start looking at > this range" kind of thing. > > I really don't understand why the nVidia crap cannot follow those > simple rules. Because either > > (a) you're working with virtual addresses, and you should be able to > work on that virtual layer > > (b) you're actually working with physical pages, and you can just > hold on to those physical pages yourself. > > I really detest our MMU callbacks. I shouldn't have allowed them to be > merged. And I definitely shoul.dn't allow them to screw up our VM > layer. > > But we have them, and we should work at making sure people do sane things. > > And yes, those sane things may include > > (a) guaranteeing that the start/end range calls are always done > around the actual locked region. > > (b) adding a ton of validation so that people *see* then they break > the rules. Even when they don't use some random notifier crud. > > That (b) may involve adding a number of "might_sleep()" calls (not > deep in the notifiers themselves, but in the actual wrapper functions > even when notifiers are compiled out entirely!), but also adding calls > to validate those kinds of "you can't call > mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() without having first called > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() in a sleepable context". > > But (b) definitely should also be a very real onus on the mmu > notifiers themselves. No way can we sleep when we're traversing page > tables. We hold a page table lock. We can sleep before and after, but > not during actual page traversal. Yes and i am fine with page traversal being under spinlock and not being able to sleep during that. I agree doing otherwise would be insane. It is just that the existing behavior of try_to_unmap_one() and page_mkclean_one() have been broken and that no mmu_notifier calls were added around the lock section. I sent a patch that properly compute the range to invalidate and move to invalidate_range() but is lacking the invalidate_range_start()/ end() so i am gonna respin that with range_start/end bracketing and assume the worse for the range of address. Cheers, Jérôme
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2017-08-25 15:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2017-08-25 15:50 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2017-08-27 14:40 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Bernhard Held <berny156@gmx.de> - 2017-08-28 17:30 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Bernhard Held <berny156@gmx.de> - 2017-08-28 18:10 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-08-28 18:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-08-28 18:10 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 19:00 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Bernhard Held <berny156@gmx.de> - 2017-08-29 11:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2017-08-29 15:10 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2017-08-29 16:10 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-29 18:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> - 2017-08-29 20:30 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> - 2017-08-29 20:40 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-29 21:10 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> - 2017-08-29 21:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-29 21:40 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2017-08-29 22:50 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-29 23:00 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-30 10:20 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:00 +0200
Re: kvm splat in mmu_spte_clear_track_bits Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-08-29 15:00 +0200
csiph-web