On 03/16/2018 08:47 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 03/16/2018 07:36 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 03/16/2018 12:14 PM, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> +static void hmm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> +{
>>> + struct hmm *hmm = mm->hmm;
>>> + struct hmm_mirror *mirror;
>>> + struct hmm_mirror *mirror_next;
>>> +
>>> + down_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(mirror, mirror_next, &hmm->mirrors, list) {
>>> + list_del_init(&mirror->list);
>>> + if (mirror->ops->release)
>>> + mirror->ops->release(mirror);
>>> + }
>>> + up_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> OK, as for actual code review:
>>
>> This part of the locking looks good. However, I think it can race against
>> hmm_mirror_register(), because hmm_mirror_register() will just add a new
>> mirror regardless.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> thread 1 thread 2
>> -------------- -----------------
>> hmm_release hmm_mirror_register
>> down_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem); <blocked: waiting for sem>
>> // deletes all list items
>> up_write
>> unblocked: adds new mirror
>>
>>
Mark Hairgrove just pointed out some more fun facts:
1. Because hmm_mirror_register() needs to be called with an mm that has a non-zero
refcount, you generally cannot get an hmm_release callback, so the above race should
not happen.
2. We looked around, and the code is missing a call to mmu_notifier_unregister().
That means that it is going to leak memory and not let the mm get released either.
Maybe having each mirror have its own mmu notifier callback is a possible way
to solve this.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
