Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 1/4] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/09/16 17:02, Yu Zhang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/22/2016 7:32 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Yu Zhang
>> <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/2016 9:04 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2016 6:47 PM, Yu Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>> A new HVMOP - HVMOP_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server, is added to
>>>>>>> let one ioreq server claim/disclaim its responsibility for the
>>>>>>> handling of guest pages with p2m type p2m_ioreq_server. Users
>>>>>>> of this HVMOP can specify which kind of operation is supposed
>>>>>>> to be emulated in a parameter named flags. Currently, this HVMOP
>>>>>>> only support the emulation of write operations. And it can be
>>>>>>> further extended to support the emulation of read ones if an
>>>>>>> ioreq server has such requirement in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For now, we only support one ioreq server for this p2m type, so
>>>>>>> once an ioreq server has claimed its ownership, subsequent calls
>>>>>>> of the HVMOP_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server will fail. Users can also
>>>>>>> disclaim the ownership of guest ram pages with p2m_ioreq_server, by
>>>>>>> triggering this new HVMOP, with ioreq server id set to the current
>>>>>>> owner's and flags parameter set to 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note both HVMOP_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server and p2m_ioreq_server
>>>>>>> are only supported for HVMs with HAP enabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also note that only after one ioreq server claims its ownership
>>>>>>> of p2m_ioreq_server, will the p2m type change to p2m_ioreq_server
>>>>>>> be allowed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Cc: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> changes in v6:
>>>>>>>      - Clarify logic in hvmemul_do_io().
>>>>>>>      - Use recursive lock for ioreq server lock.
>>>>>>>      - Remove debug print when mapping ioreq server.
>>>>>>>      - Clarify code in ept_p2m_type_to_flags() for consistency.
>>>>>>>      - Remove definition of P2M_IOREQ_HANDLE_WRITE_ACCESS.
>>>>>>>      - Add comments for HVMMEM_ioreq_server to note only changes
>>>>>>>        to/from HVMMEM_ram_rw are permitted.
>>>>>>>      - Add domain_pause/unpause() in
>>>>>>> hvm_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server()
>>>>>>>        to avoid the race condition when a vm exit happens on a
>>>>>>> write-
>>>>>>>        protected page, just to find the ioreq server has been
>>>>>>> unmapped
>>>>>>>        already.
>>>>>>>      - Introduce a seperate patch to delay the release of p2m
>>>>>>>        lock to avoid the race condition.
>>>>>>>      - Introduce a seperate patch to handle the read-modify-write
>>>>>>>        operations on a write protected page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we need to do this?  Won't the default case just DTRT if it
>>>>>> finds
>>>>>> that the ioreq server has been unmapped?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, patch 4 will either mark the remaining p2m_ioreq_server
>>>>> entries as
>>>>> "recal" or
>>>>> reset to p2m_ram_rw directly. So my understanding is that we do not
>>>>> wish
>>>>> to
>>>>> see a ept violation due to a p2m_ioreq_server access after the ioreq
>>>>> server
>>>>> is unmapped.
>>>>> Yet without this domain_pause/unpause() pair, VM accesses may
>>>>> trigger an
>>>>> ept
>>>>> violation
>>>>> during the hvmop hypercall(hvm_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server), just to
>>>>> find
>>>>> the ioreq
>>>>> server is NULL. Then we would have to provide handlers which just
>>>>> do the
>>>>> copy to/from
>>>>> actions for the VM. This seems awkward to me.
>>>> So the race you're worried about is this:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Guest fault happens
>>>> 2. ioreq server calls map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server, unhooking
>>>> 3. guest  finds no ioreq server present
>>>>
>>>> I think in that case the easiest thing to do would be to simply assume
>>>> there was a race and re-execute the instruction.  Is that not possible
>>>> for some reason?
>>>>
>>>>    -George
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply, George. :)
>>> Two reasons I'd like to use the domain_pause/unpause() to avoid the race
>>> condition:
>>>
>>> 1>  Like my previous explanation, in the read-modify-write scenario, the
>>> ioreq server will
>>> be NULL for the read emulation. But in such case, hypervisor will not
>>> discard this trap, instead
>>> it is supposed to do the copy work for the read access. So it would be
>>> difficult for hypervisor
>>> to decide if the ioreq server was detached due to a race condition,
>>> or if
>>> the ioreq server should
>>> be a NULL because we are emulating a read operation first for a
>>> read-modify-write instruction.
>> Wouldn't a patch like the attached work (applied on top of the whole
>> series)?
> 
> Thanks for your patch, George. I think it should work for 1>. But we
> still have the dead lock
> problem.  :)
> 
> BTW, do you think a domain_pause will cause any new problem?

Well using a "big hammer" like domain_pause in a case like this is
usually indicates that there are other issues that aren't being solved
properly -- for instance, latent deadlocks or unhandled race conditions.
:-)  Leaving those issues around in the codebase but "papered over" by
domain_pause is storing up technical debt that future generations will
inherit and need to untangle.  (Particularly as in this case, there was
no comment *in the code* explaining what problems the domain_pause was
there to solve, so anyone wanting to try to remove it would need to just
figure out.)

domain_pause is relatively expensive to do (since you have to spin
waiting for all the vcpus to finish running) and completely stops the
domain from handling interrupts or anything for an arbitrary amount of
time.  As long as it doesn't happen often, the cost shouldn't be a major
issue; and as long as the domain_pause is short (less than 100ms), then
it shouldn't cause any more problems than running on a fairly busy
system should cause.

On the other hand, if every time we ran into a tricky situation we just
did a domain pause rather than solving the root issue, pretty soon the
domain would be paused several times per second.  The performance would
plummet, and fixing it would be a nightmare because you'd have hundreds
of undocumented issues to try to understand and fix.

So: the domain_pause itself isn't terrible (although it's better to
avoid it if we can); what's more of a problem is the potential issues
that it's hiding.  These issues can add up, so it's important to push
back and ask "why do we need this and can we solve it a different way"
pro-actively, as patches come in, rather than waiting until it becomes
an issue.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel