On 05/09/2021 16:14, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 02:05:15PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 05/09/2021 13:54, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:45:41PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>> On 05/09/2021 10:59, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 10:25:17AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/09/2021 18:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 06:17:45PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/09/2021 18:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 06:09:39PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/09/2021 16:02, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 10:03:16AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2021 18:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 05:24:43PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2021 14:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:50:42PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/08/2021 21:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 06:11:31PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_main.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 417dea5f90cf..29db4dec02f0 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_main.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -67,6 +67,46 @@ static void efa_release_bars(struct efa_dev *dev, int bars_mask)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_release_selected_regions(pdev, release_bars);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static void efa_process_comp_eqe(struct efa_dev *dev, struct efa_admin_eqe *eqe)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u16 cqn = eqe->u.comp_event.cqn;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct efa_cq *cq;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + cq = xa_load(&dev->cqs_xa, cqn);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(!cq)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems unlikely to be correct, what prevents cq from being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed concurrently?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A comp_handler cannot be running after cq destroy completes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the long turnaround, was OOO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The CQ cannot be destroyed until all completion events are acked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/blob/7fd01f0c6799f0ecb99cae03c22cf7ff61ffbf5a/libibverbs/man/ibv_get_cq_event.3#L45
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/blob/7fd01f0c6799f0ecb99cae03c22cf7ff61ffbf5a/libibverbs/cmd_cq.c#L208
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is something quite different, and in userspace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the kernel prevents tha xa_load and the xa_erase from racing together?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to surround efa_process_comp_eqe() with an rcu_read_lock() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a synchronize_rcu() after removing it from the xarray in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroy_cq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to avoid synchronize_rcu()
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how that's possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Usually people use call_rcu() instead
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh nice, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the code would be much simpler using synchronize_rcu(), and the
>>>>>>>>>> destroy_cq flow is usually on the cold path anyway. I also prefer to be certain
>>>>>>>>>> that the CQ is freed once the destroy verb returns and not rely on the callback
>>>>>>>>>> scheduling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would not be happy to see synchronize_rcu on uverbs destroy
>>>>>>>>> functions, it is too easy to DOS the kernel with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, but isn't the fact that the uverb can return before the CQ is actually
>>>>>>>> destroyed problematic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you can't allow that, something other than RCU needs to prevent
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's an extreme corner case, but if I created max_cq CQs, destroyed one,
>>>>>>>> and try to create another one, it is not guaranteed that the create operation
>>>>>>>> would succeed - even though the destroy has finished.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More importantly a driver cannot call completion callbacks once
>>>>>>> destroy cq has returned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how is having some kind of synchronization to wait for the call_rcu()
>>>>>> callback to finish different than using synchronize_rcu()? We'll have to wait
>>>>>> for the readers to finish before returning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you need to do anything special in addition to nullify
>>>>> completion callback which will ensure that no new readers are
>>>>> coming and call_rcu to make sure that existing readers finished?
>>>>
>>>> I ensure there are no new readers by removing the CQ from the xarray.
>>>> Then I must wait for all existing readers before returning from efa_destroy_cq
>>>> and freeing the cq struct (which is done by ib_core).
>>>
>>> IB/core calls to rdma_restrack_del() which wait_for_completion() before
>>> freeing CQ and returning to the users. You don't need to wait in
>>> efa_destroy_cq().
>>
>> The irq flow doesn't call rdma_restrack_get() so I'm not sure how the
>> wait_for_completion() makes a difference here.
>> And if it does then the code is fine as is? There's nothing the call_rcu() needs
>> to do.
>
> I can't say if it is needed or not, just wanted to understand why you need
> complexity in destroy_cq path.
Well, as I said, I don't think the restrack protection is enough in this case as
it isn't aware of the concurrent eq flow.
I guess I can put a synchronize_irq() on destroy_cq flow to get rid of the race.
