[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] altp2m: Allow the hostp2m to be shared

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, George Dunlap
> <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On May 25, 2016 05:27, "George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Don't propagate altp2m changes from ept_set_entry for memshare as
>>>> > memshare
>>>> > already has the lock. We call altp2m propagate changes once memshare
>>>> > successfully finishes. Allow the hostp2m entries to be of type
>>>> > p2m_ram_shared when applying mem_access. Also, do not trigger PoD for
>>>> > hostp2m
>>>> > when setting altp2m mem_access to be in-line with non-altp2m mem_access
>>>> > path.
>>>> Hey Tamas,
>>>> Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on this.
>>> No problem, thanks for taking a closer look!
>>>> So the main issue here (correct me if I'm wrong) is the locking
>>>> discipline: namely, men_sharing_share_pages():
>>>> - Grabs the hostp2m lock
>>>> - Grabs the appropriate domain memsharing locks
>>>> - Calls set_shared_p2m_entry(), which ends up calling ept_set_entry(),
>>>> which (when altp2m is active) grabs the altp2mlist and altp2m locks.
>>>> This causes an ASSERT(), since the altp2mlist lock is ahead of the
>>>> memsharing locks in the list.
>>>> But having taken a closer look at the code, I'm not sure the change is
>>>> quite correct.  Please correct me if I've misread something:
>>>> mem_sharing_share_pages() is passed two <domain,gfn> pairs -- the
>>>> <sd,sgfn> (which I assume stands for "shared gfn") and <cd,cgfn>
>>>> (which I assume stands for "copy"); and it
>>> Here s/c stands for source/client.
>>>> 1) Looks up smfn and cmfn, which back sgfn and cmfn respectively
>>>> 2) Looks up cmfn, which backs cgfn then replaces all gfn entries which
>>>> point to cmfn with smfn (updating accounting as appropriate)
>>> Hm, I might have missed that. Where does it do the lookup for all other
>>> cgfns backed by this cmfn?
>> I was looking at the loop in the middle of the function:
>> while ( (gfn = rmap_iterate(cpage, &ri)) != NULL) {
>>  ...
>> }
>> I haven't chased it down, but it looks like this walks the reverse map
>> of all gfns which map cpage; and for each such gfn it finds it:
>> * removes the cpage -> gfn rmap
>> * Adds an spage -> gfn map
>> * Reduces the type count of cpage
>> * Sets the p2m entry for that gfn to the smfn (rather than cmfn).
>> Obviously the common case is that the number of mappings is exactly 1;
>> but we need to either ensure that this is always true, or we need to
>> handle the case where it's not true. :-)
>>>> But this change will only call p2m_altp2m_propagate_change() for the
>>>> original cgfn -- any other gfns which are backed by cmfn will not have
>>>> the corresponding altp2m entries propagated properly.
>>> Right, if there is some other place where it does sharing in the back we
>>> would have to propagate that change.
>>>> This sort of mistake is easy to make, which is why I think we should
>>>> try to always update the altp2ms in ept_set_entry() if we can, to
>>>> minimize the opportunity for making this sort of mistake.
>>>> Is there ever a reason to grab the altp2m lock and *then* grab the
>>>> sharing lock?  Could we just move the sharing lock up between the p2m
>>>> lock and the altp2mlist lock instead?
>>> I can't think of a scenario where we would get to sharing from altp2m with
>>> altp2m locking first. Not sure what you mean by moving the sharing lock up
>>> though. The problem is that sharing already has the lock by the time altp2m
>>> tries to lock, so we could pass that info down to make altp2m aware it needs
>>> no locking. It would require extending a bunch of functions though with an
>>> extra input that is barely ever used..
>> If you have altp2m there are three locks.  There's one p2m lock for
>> the "host" p2m (that is, Xen's idea of what the mapping should look
>> like).  Then there's the altp2mlist lock, which protects the *list* of
>> altp2ms; then each altp2m itself has its own lock.  These are defined
>> in mm-lock.h and  must be grabbed in that order: p2m before
>> altp2mlist, altp2mlist before altp2m.
>> I assume that the memsharing code is grabbing the hostp2m lock (it
>> should be anyway), then grabbing the memsharing locks. This is allowed
>> because the memsharing locks are defined after the p2m lock in
>> mm-lock.h.  But then when updating the p2m entry, if you have an
>> altp2m active, it then tries to grab the altp2mlist lock so it can
>> iterate over the altp2ms.  Since the altp2mlist lock is *before* the
>> sharing lock in mm-lock.h, this triggers an assert.
>> Is that not what your issue is?
> Ahh, I see! Let me give that a try - TBH this locking order
> enforcement based on position in mm-lock.h was not entirely clear to
> me =)

Indeed, it is a bit strange, but if you see the number of locks that
must be ordered properly to avoid deadlock (what, 8 or so?) it's
really only the sane way to make sure things are kept straight.

The original implementation actually uses line numbers from mm-lock.h
to declare the order, but I *think* there recently went in a patch to
change those to explicit enumerations, to make xsplice patches easier.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.