On 9/23/19 10:25 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 17:48 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>
> [...]
>> So it seems that full memory barriers (not just compiler barriers) are required.
>> If the irq enable/disable somehow provides that, then your new code just goes
>> along for the ride and Just Works. (You don't have any memory barriers in
>> start_lockless_pgtbl_walk() / end_lockless_pgtbl_walk(), just the compiler
>> barriers provided by the atomic inc/dec.)
>>
>> So it's really a pre-existing question about the correctness of the gup_fast()
>> irq disabling approach.
>
> I am not experienced in other archs, and I am still pretty new to
> Power, but by what I could understand, this behavior is better
> explained in serialize_against_pte_lookup.
>
> What happens here is that, before doing a THP split/collapse, the
> function does a update of the pmd and a serialize_against_pte_lookup,
> in order do avoid a invalid output on a lockless pagetable walk.
>
> Serialize basically runs a do_nothing in every cpu related to the
> process, and wait for it to return.
>
> This running depends on interrupt being enabled, so disabling it before
> gup_pgd_range() and re-enabling after the end, makes the THP
> split/collapse wait for gup_pgd_range() completion in every cpu before
> continuing. (here happens the lock)
>
That part is all fine, but there are no run-time memory barriers in the
atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() additions, which means that this is not
safe, because memory operations on CPU 1 can be reordered. It's safe
as shown *if* there are memory barriers to keep the order as shown:
CPU 0 CPU 1
------ --------------
atomic_inc(val) (no run-time memory barrier!)
pmd_clear(pte)
if (val)
run_on_all_cpus(): IPI
local_irq_disable() (also not a mem barrier)
READ(pte)
if(pte)
walk page tables
local_irq_enable() (still not a barrier)
atomic_dec(val)
free(pte)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
> (As told before, every gup_pgd_range() that occurs after it uses a
> updated pmd, so no problem.)
>
> I am sure other archs may have a similar mechanism using
> local_irq_{disable,enable}.
>
> Did it answer your questions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Leonardo Bras
>
