On 1/23/19 11:04 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 07:02:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 22-01-19 11:46:13, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Thu 17-01-19 10:17:59, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed 16-01-19 08:08:14, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:38:19PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue 15-01-19 09:07:59, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. So with page lock it would actually look like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> get_page_pin()
>>>>>>>>> lock_page(page);
>>>>>>>>> wait_for_stable_page();
>>>>>>>>> atomic_add(&page->_refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
>>>>>>>>> unlock_page(page);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if we perform page_pinned() check under page lock, then if
>>>>>>>>> page_pinned() returned false, we are sure page is not and will not be
>>>>>>>>> pinned until we drop the page lock (and also until page writeback is
>>>>>>>>> completed if needed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After some more though, why do we even need wait_for_stable_page() and
>>>>>>>> lock_page() in get_page_pin()?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During writepage page_mkclean() will write protect all page tables. So
>>>>>>>> there can be no new writeable GUP pins until we unlock the page as all such
>>>>>>>> GUPs will have to first go through fault and ->page_mkwrite() handler. And
>>>>>>>> that will wait on page lock and do wait_for_stable_page() for us anyway.
>>>>>>>> Am I just confused?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah with page lock it should synchronize on the pte but you still
>>>>>>> need to check for writeback iirc the page is unlocked after file
>>>>>>> system has queue up the write and thus the page can be unlock with
>>>>>>> write back pending (and PageWriteback() == trye) and i am not sure
>>>>>>> that in that states we can safely let anyone write to that page. I
>>>>>>> am assuming that in some case the block device also expect stable
>>>>>>> page content (RAID stuff).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the PageWriteback() test is not only for racing page_mkclean()/
>>>>>>> test_set_page_writeback() and GUP but also for pending write back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this is prevented by wait_for_stable_page() that is already present in
>>>>>> ->page_mkwrite() handlers. Look:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ->writepage()
>>>>>> /* Page is locked here */
>>>>>> clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)
>>>>>> page_mkclean(page)
>>>>>> -> page tables get writeprotected
>>>>>> /* The following line will be added by our patches */
>>>>>> if (page_pinned(page)) -> bounce
>>>>>> TestClearPageDirty(page)
>>>>>> set_page_writeback(page);
>>>>>> unlock_page(page);
>>>>>> ...submit_io...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IRQ
>>>>>> - IO completion
>>>>>> end_page_writeback()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if GUP happens before page_mkclean() writeprotects corresponding PTE
>>>>>> (and these two actions are synchronized on the PTE lock), page_pinned()
>>>>>> will see the increment and report the page as pinned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If GUP happens after page_mkclean() writeprotects corresponding PTE, it
>>>>>> will fault:
>>>>>> handle_mm_fault()
>>>>>> do_wp_page()
>>>>>> wp_page_shared()
>>>>>> do_page_mkwrite()
>>>>>> ->page_mkwrite() - that is block_page_mkwrite() or
>>>>>> iomap_page_mkwrite() or whatever filesystem provides
>>>>>> lock_page(page)
>>>>>> ... prepare page ...
>>>>>> wait_for_stable_page(page) -> this blocks until IO completes
>>>>>> if someone cares about pages not being modified while under IO.
>>>>>
>>>>> The case i am worried is GUP see pte with write flag set but has not
>>>>> lock the page yet (GUP is get pte first, then pte to page then lock
>>>>> page), then it locks the page but the lock page can make it wait for a
>>>>> racing page_mkclean()...write back that have not yet write protected
>>>>> the pte the GUP just read. So by the time GUP has the page locked the
>>>>> pte it read might no longer have the write flag set. Hence why you need
>>>>> to also check for write back after taking the page lock. Alternatively
>>>>> you could recheck the pte after a successful try_lock on the page.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't really possible. GUP does:
>>>>
>>>> get_user_pages()
>>>> ...
>>>> follow_page_mask()
>>>> ...
>>>> follow_page_pte()
>>>> ptep = pte_offset_map_lock()
>>>> check permissions and page sanity
>>>> if (flags & FOLL_GET)
>>>> get_page(page); -> this would become
>>>> atomic_add(&page->_refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
>>>> pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
>>>>
>>>> page_mkclean() on the other hand grabs the same pte lock to change the pte
>>>> to write-protected. So after page_mkclean() has modified the PTE we are
>>>> racing on for access, we are sure to either see increased _refcount or get
>>>> page fault from GUP.
>>>>
>>>> If we see increased _refcount, we bounce the page and are fine. If GUP
>>>> faults, we will wait for page lock (so wait until page is prepared for IO
>>>> and has PageWriteback set) while handling the fault, then enter
>>>> ->page_mkwrite, which will do wait_for_stable_page() -> wait for
>>>> outstanding writeback to complete.
>>>>
>>>> So I still conclude - no need for page lock in the GUP path at all AFAICT.
>>>> In fact we rely on the very same page fault vs page writeback synchronization
>>>> for normal user faults as well. And normal user mmap access is even nastier
>>>> than GUP access because the CPU reads page tables without taking PTE lock.
>>>
>>> For the "slow" GUP path you are right you do not need a lock as the
>>> page table lock give you the ordering. For the GUP fast path you
>>> would either need the lock or the memory barrier with the test for
>>> page write back.
>>>
>>> Maybe an easier thing is to convert GUP fast to try to take the page
>>> table lock if it fails taking the page table lock then we fall back
>>> to slow GUP path. Otherwise then we have the same garantee as the slow
>>> path.
>>
>> You're right I was looking at the wrong place for GUP_fast() path. But I
>> still don't think anything special (i.e. page lock or new barrier) is
>> necessary. GUP_fast() takes care already now that it cannot race with page
>> unmapping or write-protection (as there are other places in MM that rely on
>> this). Look, gup_pte_range() has:
>>
>> if (!page_cache_get_speculative(head))
>> goto pte_unmap;
>>
>> if (unlikely(pte_val(pte) != pte_val(*ptep))) {
>> put_page(head);
>> goto pte_unmap;
>> }
>>
>> So that page_cache_get_speculative() will become
>> page_cache_pin_speculative() to increment refcount by PAGE_PIN_BIAS instead
>> of 1. That is atomic ordered operation so it cannot be reordered with the
>> following check that PTE stayed same. So once page_mkclean() write-protects
>> PTE, there can be no new pins from GUP_fast() and we are sure all
>> succeeding pins are visible in page->_refcount after page_mkclean()
>> completes. Again this is nothing new, other mm code already relies on
>> either seeing page->_refcount incremented or GUP fast bailing out (e.g. DAX
>> relies on this). Although strictly speaking I'm not 100% sure what prevents
>> page->_refcount load to be speculatively reordered before PTE update even
>> in current places using this but there's so much stuff inbetween that
>> there's probably something ;). But we could add smp_rmb() after
>> page_mkclean() before changing page_pinned() for the peace of mind I guess.
>
> Yeah i think you are right, i missed the check on same pte value
> and the atomic inc in page_cache_get_speculative() is a barrier.
> I do not think the barrier would be necessary as page_mkclean is
> taking and dropping locks so those should have enough barriering.
>
Hi Jan, Jerome,
OK, this seems to be up and running locally, but while putting together
documentation and polishing up things, I noticed that there is one last piece
that I don't quite understand, after all. The page_cache_get_speculative()
existing documentation explains how refcount synchronizes these things, but I
don't see how that helps with synchronization page_mkclean and gup, in this
situation:
gup_fast gets the refcount and rechecks the pte hasn't changed
meanwhile, page_mkclean...wait, how does refcount come into play here?
page_mkclean can remove the mapping and insert a write-protected pte,
regardless of page refcount, correct? Help? :)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
