Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2019/8/4 下午4:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 09:14:00PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
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.
You think copy_to_user will be more expensive than the minimum two
atomics required to synchronize with another thread?
I frankly don't know. With SMAP you flip flags twice, and with spectre
you flush the pipeline. Is that cheaper or more expensive than an atomic
operation? Testing is the only way to tell.


Let me test, I only did test on a non SMAP machine. Switching to spinlock kills all performance improvement.

Thanks



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??
You didn't answer this.. Why not just use GUP?

Jason
Sorry I misunderstood the question. Permanent GUP breaks lots of
functionality we need such as THP and numa balancing.

release_pages is used instead of put_page.








[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux