On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:32:01AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015, j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() and mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end()
> > can be considered as forming an "atomic" section for the cpu page table update
> > point of view. Between this two function the cpu page table content is unreliable
> > for the address range being invalidated.
> >
> > Current user such as kvm need to know when they can trust the content of the cpu
> > page table. This becomes even more important to new users of the mmu_notifier
> > api (such as HMM or ODP).
> >
> > This patch use a structure define at all call site to invalidate_range_start()
> > that is added to a list for the duration of the invalidation. It adds two new
> > helpers to allow querying if a range is being invalidated or to wait for a range
> > to become valid.
> >
> > For proper synchronization, user must block new range invalidation from inside
> > there invalidate_range_start() callback, before calling the helper functions.
> > Otherwise there is no garanty that a new range invalidation will not be added
> > after the call to the helper function to query for existing range.
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Most of this information will make nice block comments for the new helper
> routines. I can help tighten up the writing slightly, but first:
>
> Question: in hmm.c's hmm_notifier_invalidate function (looking at the
> entire patchset, for a moment), I don't see any blocking of new range
> invalidations, even though you point out, above, that this is required. Am
> I missing it, and if so, where should I be looking instead?
This is a 2 sided synchronization:
- hmm_device_fault_start() will wait for active invalidation that conflict
to be done
- hmm_wait_device_fault() will block new invalidation until
active fault that conflict back off.
> [...]
>
> > - enum mmu_event event)
> > + struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> >
> > {
> > struct mmu_notifier *mn;
> > int id;
> >
> > + spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> > + list_add_tail(&range->list, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->ranges);
> > + mm->mmu_notifier_mm->nranges++;
>
>
> Is this missing a call to wake_up(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->wait_queue)? If
> not, then it would be helpful to explain why that's only required for
> nranges--, and not for the nranges++ case. The helper routine is merely
> waiting for nranges to *change*, not looking for greater than or less
> than.
This is on purpose, as the waiting side only wait for active invalidation
to be done ie for mm->mmu_notifier_mm->nranges-- so there is no reasons to
wake up when a new invalidation is starting. Also the test need to be a not
equal because other non conflicting range might be added/removed meaning
that wait might finish even if mm->mmu_notifier_mm->nranges > saved_nranges.
[...]
> > +static bool mmu_notifier_range_is_valid_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > + unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end)
>
>
> This routine is named "_range_is_valid_", but it takes in an implicit
> range (start, end), and also a list of ranges (buried in mm), and so it's
> a little confusing. I'd like to consider *maybe* changing either the name,
> or the args (range* instead of start, end?), or something.
>
> Could you please say a few words about the intent of this routine, to get
> us started there?
It is just the same as mmu_notifier_range_is_valid() but it expects locks
to be taken. This is for the benefit of mmu_notifier_range_wait_valid()
which need to test if a range is valid (ie no conflicting invalidation)
or not. I added a comment to explain this 3 function and to explain how
the 2 publics helper needs to be use.
Cheers,
Jérôme
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>