On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 02:24:18PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:27:21AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:46:13AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:40:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > This must be a proper barrier, like a spinlock, mutex, or
> > > > > synchronize_rcu.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I start with synchronize_rcu() but both you and Michael raise some
> > > > concern.
> > >
> > > I've also idly wondered if calling synchronize_rcu() under the various
> > > mm locks is a deadlock situation.
> > >
> > > > Then I try spinlock and mutex:
> > > >
> > > > 1) spinlock: add lots of overhead on datapath, this leads 0 performance
> > > > improvement.
> > >
> > > I think the topic here is correctness not performance improvement
> >
> > The topic is whether we should revert
> > commit 7f466032dc9 ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address")
> >
> > or keep it in. The only reason to keep it is performance.
>
> Yikes, I'm not sure you can ever win against copy_from_user using
> mmu_notifiers?
Ever since copy_from_user started playing with flags (for SMAP) and
added speculation barriers there's a chance we can win by accessing
memory through the kernel address.
Another reason would be to access it from e.g. softirq
context. copy_from_user will only work if the
correct mmu is active.
> The synchronization requirements are likely always
> more expensive unless large and scattered copies are being done..
>
> The rcu is about the only simple approach that could be less
> expensive, and that gets back to the question if you can block an
> invalidate_start_range in synchronize_rcu or not..
>
> So, frankly, I'd revert it until someone could prove the rcu solution is
> OK..
I have it all disabled at compile time, so reverting isn't urgent
anymore. I'll wait a couple more days to decide what's cleanest.
> BTW, how do you get copy_from_user to work outside a syscall?
By switching to the correct mm.
>
> Also, why can't this just permanently GUP the pages? In fact, where
> does it put_page them anyhow? Worrying that 7f466 adds a get_user page
> but does not add a put_page??
>
> Jason
