On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:07 AM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-28 8:10 p.m., Dan Williams wrote: > > Yes, please send a proper patch. > > Ok, I'll send one shortly. > > > Although, I'm still not sure I see > > the problem with the order of the percpu-ref kill. It's likely more > > efficient to put the kill after the put_page() loop because the > > percpu-ref will still be in "fast" per-cpu mode, but the kernel panic > > should not be possible as long as their is a wait_for_completion() > > before the exit, unless something else is wrong. > > The series of events looks something like this: > > 1) Some p2pdma user calls pci_alloc_p2pmem() to get some memory to DMA > to taking a reference to the pgmap. > 2) Another process unbinds the underlying p2pdma driver and the devm > chain starts to unwind. > 3) devm_memremap_pages_release() is called and it kills the reference > and drop's it's last reference. Oh! Yes, nice find. We need to wait for the percpu-ref to be dead and all outstanding references dropped before we can proceed to arch_remove_memory(), and I think this problem has been there since day one because the final exit was always after devm_memremap_pages() release which means arch_remove_memory() was always racing any final put_page(). I'll take a look, it seems the arch_remove_pages() call needs to be moved out-of-line to its own context and wait for the final exit of the percpu-ref. > 4) arch_remove_memory() is called which will remove all the struct pages. > 5) We eventually get to pci_p2pdma_release() where we wait for the > completion indicating all the pages have been freed. > 6) The user in (1) tries to use the page that has been removed, > typically by calling pci_p2pdma_map_sg(), but the page doesn't exist so > the kernel panics. > > So we really need the wait in (5) to occur before (4) but after (3) so > that the pages continue to exist until the last reference is dropped. > > > Certainly you can't move the wait_for_completion() into your ->kill() > > callback without switching the ordering, but I'm not on board with > > that change until I understand a bit more about why you think > > device-dax might be broken? > > > > I took a look at the p2pdma shutdown path and the: > > > > if (percpu_ref_is_dying(ref)) > > return; > > ...looks fishy. If multiple agents can overlap their requests for the > > same range why not track that simply as additional refs? Could it be > > the crash that you are seeing is a result of mis-accounting when it is > > safe to assume the page allocation can be freed? > > Yeah, someone else mentioned the same thing during review but if I > remove it, there can be a double kill() on a hypothetical driver that > might call pci_p2pdma_add_resource() twice. The issue is we only have > one percpu_ref per device not one per range/BAR. > > Though, now that I look at it, the current change in question will be > wrong if there are two devm_memremap_pages_release()s to call. Both need > to drop their references before we can wait_for_completion() ;(. I guess > I need multiple percpu_refs or more complex changes to > devm_memremap_pages_release(). Can you just have a normal device-level kref for this case? On final device-level kref_put then kill the percpu_ref? I guess the problem is devm semantics where p2pdma only gets one callback on a driver ->remove() event. I'm not sure how to support multiple references of the same pages without creating a non-devm version of devm_memremap_pages(). I'm not opposed to that, but afaiu I don't think p2pdma is compatible with devm as long as it supports N>1:1 mappings of the same range. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
