On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 03:47:50PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 1/29/19 8:54 AM, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Every time i read the code to check that the HMM structure does not
> > vanish before it should thanks to the many lock protecting its removal
> > i get a headache. Switch to reference counting instead it is much
> > easier to follow and harder to break. This also remove some code that
> > is no longer needed with refcounting.
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> That is an excellent idea. Some review comments below:
>
> [snip]
>
> > static int hmm_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> > {
> > struct hmm_update update;
> > - struct hmm *hmm = range->mm->hmm;
> > + struct hmm *hmm = hmm_get(range->mm);
> > + int ret;
> > VM_BUG_ON(!hmm);
> > + /* Check if hmm_mm_destroy() was call. */
> > + if (hmm->mm == NULL)
> > + return 0;
>
> Let's delete that NULL check. It can't provide true protection. If there
> is a way for that to race, we need to take another look at refcounting.
I will do a patch to delete the NULL check so that it is easier for
Andrew. No need to respin.
> Is there a need for mmgrab()/mmdrop(), to keep the mm around while HMM
> is using it?
It is already the case. The hmm struct holds a reference on the mm struct
and the mirror struct holds a reference on the hmm struct hence the mirror
struct holds a reference on the mm through the hmm struct.
[...]
> > /* FIXME support hugetlb fs */
> > if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma) || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SPECIAL) ||
> > vma_is_dax(vma)) {
> > hmm_pfns_special(range);
> > + hmm_put(hmm);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > @@ -910,6 +958,7 @@ int hmm_vma_fault(struct hmm_range *range, bool block)
> > * operations such has atomic access would not work.
> > */
> > hmm_pfns_clear(range, range->pfns, range->start, range->end);
> > + hmm_put(hmm);
> > return -EPERM;
> > }
> > @@ -945,7 +994,16 @@ int hmm_vma_fault(struct hmm_range *range, bool block)
> > hmm_pfns_clear(range, &range->pfns[i], hmm_vma_walk.last,
> > range->end);
> > hmm_vma_range_done(range);
> > + hmm_put(hmm);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Transfer hmm reference to the range struct it will be drop
> > + * inside the hmm_vma_range_done() function (which _must_ be
> > + * call if this function return 0).
> > + */
> > + range->hmm = hmm;
>
> Is that thread-safe? Is there anything preventing two or more threads from
> changing range->hmm at the same time?
The range is provided by the driver and the driver should not change
the hmm field nor should it use the range struct in multiple threads.
If the driver do stupid things there is nothing i can do. Note that
this code is removed latter in the serie.
Cheers,
Jérôme
