On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:06:15AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
> We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads
> calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy
> system, there would be many factors that may slow down the
> synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be called in MMU
> notifier.
>
> So this patch switches use seqlock counter to track whether or not the
> map was used. The counter was increased when vq try to start or finish
> uses the map. This means, when it was even, we're sure there's no
> readers and MMU notifier is synchronized. When it was odd, it means
> there's a reader we need to wait it to be even again then we are
> synchronized. Consider the read critical section is pretty small the
> synchronization should be done very fast.
>
> Reported-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 7f466032dc9e ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address")
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 7 ++-
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index cfc11f9ed9c9..57bfbb60d960 100644
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -324,17 +324,16 @@ static void vhost_uninit_vq_maps(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>
> spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> for (i = 0; i < VHOST_NUM_ADDRS; i++) {
> - map[i] = rcu_dereference_protected(vq->maps[i],
> - lockdep_is_held(&vq->mmu_lock));
> + map[i] = vq->maps[i];
> if (map[i]) {
> vhost_set_map_dirty(vq, map[i], i);
> - rcu_assign_pointer(vq->maps[i], NULL);
> + vq->maps[i] = NULL;
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock);
>
> - /* No need for synchronize_rcu() or kfree_rcu() since we are
> - * serialized with memory accessors (e.g vq mutex held).
> + /* No need for synchronization since we are serialized with
> + * memory accessors (e.g vq mutex held).
> */
>
> for (i = 0; i < VHOST_NUM_ADDRS; i++)
> @@ -362,6 +361,40 @@ static bool vhost_map_range_overlap(struct vhost_uaddr *uaddr,
> return !(end < uaddr->uaddr || start > uaddr->uaddr - 1 + uaddr->size);
> }
>
> +static void inline vhost_vq_access_map_begin(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> +{
> + write_seqcount_begin(&vq->seq);
> +}
> +
> +static void inline vhost_vq_access_map_end(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> +{
> + write_seqcount_end(&vq->seq);
> +}
The write side of a seqlock only provides write barriers. Access to
map = vq->maps[VHOST_ADDR_USED];
Still needs a read side barrier, and then I think this will be no
better than a normal spinlock.
It also doesn't seem like this algorithm even needs a seqlock, as this
is just a one bit flag
atomic_set_bit(using map)
smp_mb__after_atomic()
.. maps [...]
atomic_clear_bit(using map)
map = NULL;
smp_mb__before_atomic();
while (atomic_read_bit(using map))
relax()
Again, not clear this could be faster than a spinlock when the
barriers are correct...
Jason
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
