On Wed 20-07-22 13:51:12, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Charan,
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:42:42PM +0530, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> > Thanks Michal!!
> >
> > On 7/18/2022 8:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>>> The above mentioned race is just one example __but the problem persists
> > >>>> in the other paths too involving page_ext->flags access(eg:
> > >>>> page_is_idle())__. Since offline waits till the last reference on the
> > >>>> page goes down i.e. any path that took the refcount on the page can make
> > >>>> the memory offline operation to wait. Eg: In the migrate_pages()
> > >>>> operation, we do take the extra refcount on the pages that are under
> > >>>> migration and then we do copy page_owner by accessing page_ext. For
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fix those paths where offline races with page_ext access by maintaining
> > >>>> synchronization with rcu lock.
> > >>> Please be much more specific about the synchronization. How does RCU
> > >>> actually synchronize the offlining and access? Higher level description
> > >>> of all the actors would be very helpful not only for the review but also
> > >>> for future readers.
> > >> I will improve the commit message about this synchronization change
> > >> using RCU's.
> > > Thanks! The most imporant part is how the exclusion is actual achieved
> > > because that is not really clear at first sight
> > >
> > > CPU1 CPU2
> > > lookup_page_ext(PageA) offlining
> > > offline_page_ext
> > > __free_page_ext(addrA)
> > > get_entry(addrA)
> > > ms->page_ext = NULL
> > > synchronize_rcu()
> > > free_page_ext
> > > free_pages_exact (now addrA is unusable)
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock()
> > > entryA = get_entry(addrA)
> > > base + page_ext_size * index # an address not invalidated by the freeing path
> > > do_something(entryA)
> > > rcu_read_unlock()
> > >
> > > CPU1 never checks ms->page_ext so it cannot bail out early when the
> > > thing is torn down. Or maybe I am missing something. I am not familiar
> > > with page_ext much.
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for catching this Michal. You are correct that the proposed
> > code from me is still racy. I Will correct this along with the proper
> > commit message in the next version of this patch.
> >
>
> Trying to understand your discussion with Michal. What part is still racy? We
> do check for mem_section::page_ext and bail out early from lookup_page_ext(),
> no?
>
> Also to make this scheme explicit, we can annotate page_ext member with __rcu
> and use rcu_assign_pointer() on the writer side.
>
> struct page_ext *lookup_page_ext(const struct page *page)
> {
> unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> struct mem_section *section = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
> /*
> * The sanity checks the page allocator does upon freeing a
> * page can reach here before the page_ext arrays are
> * allocated when feeding a range of pages to the allocator
> * for the first time during bootup or memory hotplug.
> */
> if (!section->page_ext)
> return NULL;
> return get_entry(section->page_ext, pfn);
> }
You are right. I was looking at the wrong implementation and misread
ifdef vs. ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM. My bad.
Memory hotplug is not supported outside of CONFIG_SPARSEMEM so the
scheme should really work. I would use READ_ONCE for ms->page_ext and
WRITE_ONCE on the initialization side.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
