On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:53:29PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:23:14PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:15:38AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Assigning an irqfd object to a kvm object creates a relationship that we
> >>>> currently manage by having the kvm oject acquire/hold a file* reference to
> >>>> the underlying eventfd. The lifetime of these objects is properly maintained
> >>>> by decoupling the two objects whenever the irqfd is closed or kvm is closed,
> >>>> whichever comes first.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, the irqfd "close" method is less than ideal since it requires two
> >>>> system calls to complete (one for ioctl(kvmfd, IRQFD_DEASSIGN), the other for
> >>>> close(eventfd)). This dual-call approach was utilized because there was no
> >>>> notification mechanism on the eventfd side at the time irqfd was implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>> Recently, Davide proposed a patch to send a POLLHUP wakeup whenever an
> >>>> eventfd is about to close. So we eliminate the IRQFD_DEASSIGN ioctl (*)
> >>>> vector in favor of sensing the desassign automatically when the fd is closed.
> >>>> The resulting code is slightly more complex as a result since we need to
> >>>> allow either side to sever the relationship independently. We utilize SRCU
> >>>> to guarantee stable concurrent access to the KVM pointer without adding
> >>>> additional atomic operations in the fast path.
> >>>>
> >>>> At minimum, this design should be acked by both Davide and Paul (cc'd).
> >>>>
> >>>> (*) The irqfd patch does not exist in any released tree, so the understanding
> >>>> is that we can alter the irqfd specific ABI without taking the normal
> >>>> precautions, such as CAP bits.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> A few questions and suggestions interspersed below.
> >>>
> >>> Thanx, Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thanks for the review, Paul.
> >>
> >
> > Some questions, clarifications, and mea culpas below.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >
> >> (FYI: This isn't quite what I was asking you about on IRC yesterday, but
> >> it's related...and the SRCU portion of the conversation *did* inspire me
> >> here. Just note that the stuff I was asking about is still forthcoming)
> >>
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> CC: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> CC: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> include/linux/kvm.h | 2 -
> >>>> virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> >>>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 3 +
> >>>> 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm.h b/include/linux/kvm.h
> >>>> index 632a856..29b62cc 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/kvm.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm.h
> >>>> @@ -482,8 +482,6 @@ struct kvm_x86_mce {
> >>>> };
> >>>> #endif
> >>>>
> >>>> -#define KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSIGN (1 << 0)
> >>>> -
> >>>> struct kvm_irqfd {
> >>>> __u32 fd;
> >>>> __u32 gsi;
> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> >>>> index f3f2ea1..6ed62e2 100644
> >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> >>>> @@ -37,26 +37,63 @@
> >>>> * --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> */
> >>>> struct _irqfd {
> >>>> + struct mutex lock;
> >>>> + struct srcu_struct srcu;
> >>>> struct kvm *kvm;
> >>>> int gsi;
> >>>> - struct file *file;
> >>>> struct list_head list;
> >>>> poll_table pt;
> >>>> wait_queue_head_t *wqh;
> >>>> wait_queue_t wait;
> >>>> - struct work_struct work;
> >>>> + struct work_struct inject;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> static void
> >>>> irqfd_inject(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - struct _irqfd *irqfd = container_of(work, struct _irqfd, work);
> >>>> - struct kvm *kvm = irqfd->kvm;
> >>>> + struct _irqfd *irqfd = container_of(work, struct _irqfd, inject);
> >>>> + struct kvm *kvm;
> >>>> + int idx;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + idx = srcu_read_lock(&irqfd->srcu);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kvm = rcu_dereference(irqfd->kvm);
> >>>>
>
> [4]
>
> >>>> + if (kvm) {
> >>>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> + kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, irqfd->gsi, 1);
> >>>> + kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, irqfd->gsi, 0);
> >>>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + srcu_read_unlock(&irqfd->srcu, idx);
> >>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void
> >>>> +irqfd_disconnect(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct kvm *kvm;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + mutex_lock(&irqfd->lock);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kvm = rcu_dereference(irqfd->kvm);
> >>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(irqfd->kvm, NULL);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + mutex_unlock(&irqfd->lock);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> [2]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!kvm)
> >>>> + return;
> >>>>
> >>>> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> - kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, irqfd->gsi, 1);
> >>>> - kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, irqfd->gsi, 0);
> >>>> + list_del(&irqfd->list);
> >>>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * It is important to not drop the kvm reference until the next grace
> >>>> + * period because there might be lockless references in flight up
> >>>> + * until then
> >>>> + */
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> The lockless references are all harmless even if carried out after the
> >>> kvm structure has been removed?
> >>>
> >> No, but all ([1]) references to my knowledge occur within an srcu
> >> read-side CS, and we only drop the object reference ([3]) outside of
> >> that CS by virtue of the synchronize_srcu() barrier below. The one
> >> notable exception is [2], which I don't declare as a read-side CS since
> >> I hold the mutex during the swap.
> >>
> >> OTOH, this is really my _intention_, not _reality_ per se. ;) E.g. I
> >> may have completely flubbed up the design, so I'm glad you are looking
> >> at it.
> >>
> >
> > Looks good in general -- my question is about the window of time
> > between when the object is removed from the list (and might still have
> > readers referencing it) and when the object is freed (and, courtesy of
> > synchronize_srcu(), can no longer be referenced by readers).
> >
> > In other words, the following sequence of events:
> >
> > o CPU 0 picks up a pointer to the object.
> >
> > o CPU 1 removes that same object from the list, and invokes
> > synchronize_srcu(), which cannot return yet due to CPU 0
> > being in an SRCU read-side critical section.
> >
> > o CPU 0 acquires the lock and invokes the pair of kvm_set_irq()
> > calls, releases the lock and exits the SRCU read-side critical
> > section.
> >
> > o CPU 1's synchronize_srcu() can now return, and does.
> >
> > o CPU 1 frees the object.
> >
> > I honestly don't know enough about KVM to say whether or not this is a
> > problem, but thought I should ask. ;-)
>
> Right, ok. What you outline is consistent with my expectations. That
> is, I need to make sure that it is not possible to have any concurrent
> code call kvm_put_cpu between [4] and [1] against the same pointer. It
> is, of course, ok if some other code path enters irqfd_inject() _after_
> [2] because I would have already swapped the pointer with NULL and it
> will simply bail out on the conditional right after [4].
Yep, that is what the combination of srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(),
and synchronize_srcu() will do.
> >>> Or does there need to be a ->deleted
> >>> field that allows the lockless references to ignore a kvm structure that
> >>> has already been deleted?
> >>>
> >> I guess you could say that the "rcu_assign_pointer(NULL)" is my
> >> "deleted" field. The reader-side code in question should check for that
> >> condition before proceeding.
> >>
> >
> > Fair enough! But please keep in mind that the pointer could be assigned
> > to NULL just after we dereference it, especially if we are interrupted
> > or preempted or something.
>
> Right, and that should be ok IIUC as long as I can be guaranteed to
> never call kvm_put_kvm() before the dereferencer calls
> srcu_read_unlock(). I currently believe this guarantee is provided by
> the synchronize_srcu() at [3], but please straighten me out if that is a
> naive assumption.
You are correct, that is indeed the guarantee provided by
synchronize_srcu().
> > Or is the idea to re-check the pointer under some lock?
> >
> I do not currently believe I need to worry about that case, but as
> always, straighten me out if that is wrong. ;)
Given what you say below, you should be OK.
> >>> On the other hand, if it really is somehow OK for kvm_set_irq() to be
> >>> called on an already-deleted kvm structure, then this code would be OK
> >>> as is.
> >>>
> >> Definitely not, so if you think that can happen please raise the flag.
> >
> > Apologies, I was being a bit sloppy. Instead of "already-deleted",
> > I should have said something like "already removed from the list but
> > not yet freed".
>
> Ah, ok. The answer in that case would be "yes". It's ok to call
> kvm_set_irq() while the irqfd->kvm pointer is NULL, but it is not ok to
> call it after or during kvm_put_kvm() has been invoked. Technically the
> first safe point is right after the last mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock)
> completes (right before [1]), and is officially annotated with the
> subsequent srcu_read_unlock().
Good enough!
> >>>> + synchronize_srcu(&irqfd->srcu);
> >>>> + kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> [3]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static int
> >>>> @@ -64,12 +101,28 @@ irqfd_wakeup(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct _irqfd *irqfd = container_of(wait, struct _irqfd, wait);
> >>>>
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * The wake_up is called with interrupts disabled. Therefore we need
> >>>> - * to defer the IRQ injection until later since we need to acquire the
> >>>> - * kvm->lock to do so.
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - schedule_work(&irqfd->work);
> >>>> + switch ((unsigned long)key) {
> >>>> + case POLLIN:
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * The POLLIN wake_up is called with interrupts disabled.
> >>>> + * Therefore we need to defer the IRQ injection until later
> >>>> + * since we need to acquire the kvm->lock to do so.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case POLLHUP:
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * The POLLHUP is called unlocked, so it theoretically should
> >>>> + * be safe to remove ourselves from the wqh
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + remove_wait_queue(irqfd->wqh, &irqfd->wait);
> >>>> + flush_work(&irqfd->inject);
> >>>> + irqfd_disconnect(irqfd);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Good. The fact that irqfd_disconnect() does a synchronize_srcu()
> >>> prevents any readers from trying to do an SRCU operation on an already
> >>> cleaned-up srcu_struct, so this does look safe to me.
> >>>
> >> As an additional data point, we can guarantee that we will never be
> >> called again since we synchronously unhook from the wqh and kvm->irqfds
> >> list, and the POLLHUP is called from f_ops->release().
> >
> > So the window is short, but still exists, correct?
>
> Can you elaborate?
This is the same window we discussed above. It is the window that
allows an object to be removed from the list between the time that a
reader obtains a reference to the object and the time that this readers
actually uses this reference.
> >>>> + cleanup_srcu_struct(&irqfd->srcu);
> >>>> + kfree(irqfd);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>> @@ -84,8 +137,8 @@ irqfd_ptable_queue_proc(struct file *file, wait_queue_head_t *wqh,
> >>>> add_wait_queue(wqh, &irqfd->wait);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int
> >>>> -kvm_assign_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi)
> >>>> +int
> >>>> +kvm_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi, int flags)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct _irqfd *irqfd;
> >>>> struct file *file = NULL;
> >>>> @@ -95,10 +148,12 @@ kvm_assign_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi)
> >>>> if (!irqfd)
> >>>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>
> >>>> + mutex_init(&irqfd->lock);
> >>>> + init_srcu_struct(&irqfd->srcu);
> >>>> irqfd->kvm = kvm;
> >>>> irqfd->gsi = gsi;
> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&irqfd->list);
> >>>> - INIT_WORK(&irqfd->work, irqfd_inject);
> >>>> + INIT_WORK(&irqfd->inject, irqfd_inject);
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * Embed the file* lifetime in the irqfd.
> >>>> @@ -120,12 +175,18 @@ kvm_assign_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi)
> >>>> if (ret < 0)
> >>>> goto fail;
> >>>>
> >>>> - irqfd->file = file;
> >>>> + kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
> >>>>
> >>>> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> list_add_tail(&irqfd->list, &kvm->irqfds);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Doesn't the above need to be list_add_tail_rcu()? Unless I am confused,
> >>> this is the point at which the new SRCU-protected structure is first
> >>> made public. If so, you really do need list_add_tail_rcu() to make sure
> >>> that concurrent readers don't see pre-initialized values in the structure.
> >>>
> >> I *think* this is ok as a traditional list, because the only paths that
> >> touch this list are guarded by the kvm->lock mutex. Let me know if you
> >> see otherwise or if that is not enough.
> >
> > My mistake, you are using rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference()
> > instead of the list primitives. Never mind!!!
>
> Yeah, and note that we actually have two types of objects and their
> references floating around:
>
> *) We have "struct irqfd" which can be thought of as an extension of
> eventfd. It holds exactly one (or zero) references to kvm via the
> irqfd->kvm pointer, and as you note above I use rcu_XX() macros and srcu
> to manage it.
>
> *) Conversely, we have "struct kvm" which may have a 1:N relationship
> with many irqfds, which I manage with a standard list at kvm->irqfds
> protected by kvm->lock.
This combination should work fine. You do acquire the lock within the
SRCU read-side critical section, as required. It looks to me that you
avoid freeing the underlying "struct kvm" until after a grace period
past removal from the list, again, as required.
Thanx, Paul
> So the code that uses the rcu_dereference/rcu_assign_pointer is actually
> different than the code mentioned above that is manipulating the
> kvm->irqfds list with list_add_tail(). The latter isn't directly RCU
> related and is why you see the non-rcu variants of the list functions in
> use.
>
> That said, if you still see a hole in that approach, do not be shy in
> pointing it out ;)
>
> Thanks again for taking to time to go over all this, Paul. I know you
> are very busy, and its very much appreciated!
>
> -Greg
>
> >
> >>>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>>
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * do not drop the file until the irqfd is fully initialized, otherwise
> >>>> + * we might race against the POLLHUP
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + fput(file);
> >>>> +
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> fail:
> >>>> @@ -139,97 +200,17 @@ fail:
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static void
> >>>> -irqfd_release(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * The ordering is important. We must remove ourselves from the wqh
> >>>> - * first to ensure no more event callbacks are issued, and then flush
> >>>> - * any previously scheduled work prior to freeing the memory
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - remove_wait_queue(irqfd->wqh, &irqfd->wait);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - flush_work(&irqfd->work);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - fput(irqfd->file);
> >>>> - kfree(irqfd);
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>> -static struct _irqfd *
> >>>> -irqfd_remove(struct kvm *kvm, struct file *file, int gsi)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> - struct _irqfd *irqfd;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * linear search isn't brilliant, but this should be an infrequent
> >>>> - * slow-path operation, and the list should not grow very large
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - list_for_each_entry(irqfd, &kvm->irqfds, list) {
> >>>> - if (irqfd->file != file || irqfd->gsi != gsi)
> >>>> - continue;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - list_del(&irqfd->list);
> >>>> - mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - return irqfd;
> >>>> - }
> >>>> -
> >>>> - mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - return NULL;
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>> -static int
> >>>> -kvm_deassign_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> - struct _irqfd *irqfd;
> >>>> - struct file *file;
> >>>> - int count = 0;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - file = fget(fd);
> >>>> - if (IS_ERR(file))
> >>>> - return PTR_ERR(file);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - while ((irqfd = irqfd_remove(kvm, file, gsi))) {
> >>>> - /*
> >>>> - * We remove the item from the list under the lock, but we
> >>>> - * free it outside the lock to avoid deadlocking with the
> >>>> - * flush_work and the work_item taking the lock
> >>>> - */
> >>>> - irqfd_release(irqfd);
> >>>> - count++;
> >>>> - }
> >>>> -
> >>>> - fput(file);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - return count ? count : -ENOENT;
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>> void
> >>>> kvm_irqfd_init(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>>> {
> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->irqfds);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -int
> >>>> -kvm_irqfd(struct kvm *kvm, int fd, int gsi, int flags)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> - if (flags & KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSIGN)
> >>>> - return kvm_deassign_irqfd(kvm, fd, gsi);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - return kvm_assign_irqfd(kvm, fd, gsi);
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>> void
> >>>> kvm_irqfd_release(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct _irqfd *irqfd, *tmp;
> >>>>
> >>>> - /* don't bother with the lock..we are shutting down */
> >>>> - list_for_each_entry_safe(irqfd, tmp, &kvm->irqfds, list) {
> >>>> - list_del(&irqfd->list);
> >>>> - irqfd_release(irqfd);
> >>>> - }
> >>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(irqfd, tmp, &kvm->irqfds, list)
> >>>> + irqfd_disconnect(irqfd);
> >>>> }
> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> >>>> index 902fed9..a9f62bb 100644
> >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> >>>> @@ -1029,7 +1029,6 @@ static void kvm_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>>> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> >>>> list_del(&kvm->vm_list);
> >>>> spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> >>>> - kvm_irqfd_release(kvm);
> >>>> kvm_free_irq_routing(kvm);
> >>>> kvm_io_bus_destroy(&kvm->pio_bus);
> >>>> kvm_io_bus_destroy(&kvm->mmio_bus);
> >>>> @@ -1064,6 +1063,8 @@ static int kvm_vm_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct kvm *kvm = filp->private_data;
> >>>>
> >>>> + kvm_irqfd_release(kvm);
> >>>> +
> >>>> kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
