Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/10] vfio/type1: Prepare is_invalid_reserved_pfn() for PG_reserved changes

[David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08.11.19 08:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.11.19 06:09, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:07 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 07.11.19 19:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > Am 07.11.2019 um 16:40 schrieb Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 5:12 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Right now, ZONE_DEVICE memory is always set PG_reserved. We want to
> > > > > > change that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KVM has this weird use case that you can map anything from /dev/mem
> > > > > > into the guest. pfn_valid() is not a reliable check whether the memmap
> > > > > > was initialized and can be touched. pfn_to_online_page() makes sure
> > > > > > that we have an initialized memmap (and don't have ZONE_DEVICE memory).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rewrite is_invalid_reserved_pfn() similar to kvm_is_reserved_pfn() to make
> > > > > > sure the function produces the same result once we stop setting ZONE_DEVICE
> > > > > > pages PG_reserved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > > > > index 2ada8e6cdb88..f8ce8c408ba8 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > > > > @@ -299,9 +299,15 @@ static int vfio_lock_acct(struct vfio_dma *dma, long 
> > > > > > npage, bool async)
> > > > > >     */
> > > > > > static bool is_invalid_reserved_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > -       if (pfn_valid(pfn))
> > > > > > -               return PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> > > > > > +       struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
> > > > > Ugh, I just realized this is not a safe conversion until
> > > > > pfn_to_online_page() is moved over to subsection granularity. As it
> > > > > stands it will return true for any ZONE_DEVICE pages that share a
> > > > > section with boot memory.
> > > > That should not happen right now and I commented back when you introduced subsection 
> > > > support that I don’t want to have ZONE_DEVICE mixed with online pages in a 
> > > > section. Having memory block devices that partially span ZONE_DEVICE would be ... 
> > > > really weird. With something like pfn_active() - as discussed - we could at least make 
> > > > this check work - but I am not sure if we really want to go down that path. In the 
> > > > worst case, some MB of RAM are lost ... I guess this needs more thought.
> > > I just realized the "boot memory" part. Is that a real thing? IOW, can
> > > we have ZONE_DEVICE falling into a memory block (with holes)? I somewhat
> > > have doubts that this would work ...
> > One of the real world failure cases that started the subsection effect
> > is that Persistent Memory collides with System RAM on a 64MB boundary
> > on shipping platforms. System RAM ends on a 64MB boundary and due to a
> > lack of memory controller resources PMEM is mapped contiguously at the
> > end of that boundary. Some more details in the subsection cover letter
> > / changelogs [1] [2]. It's not sufficient to just lose some memory,
> > that's the broken implementation that lead to the subsection work
> > because the lost memory may change from one boot to the next and
> > software can't reliably inject a padding that conforms to the x86
> > 128MB section constraint.
> Thanks, I thought it was mostly for weird alignment where other parts of
> the section are basically "holes" and not memory.
>
> Yes, it is a real bug that ZONE_DEVICE pages fall into sections that are
> marked SECTION_IS_ONLINE.
>
> > Suffice to say I think we need your pfn_active() to get subsection
> > granularity pfn_to_online_page() before PageReserved() can be removed.
> I agree that we have to fix this. I don't like ZONE_DEVICE pages falling
> into memory device blocks (e.g., cannot get offlined), but I guess that
> train is gone :) As long as it's not for memory hotplug, I can most
> probably live with this.
>
> Also, I'd like to get Michals opinion on this and the pfn_active()
> approach, but I can understand he's busy.
>
> This patch set can wait, I won't be working next week besides
> reading/writing mails either way.
>
> Is anybody looking into the pfn_active() thingy?
I wonder if we should do something like this right now to fix this 
(exclude the false positive ZONE_DEVICE pages we could have within an 
online section, which was not possible before subsection hotplug):
diff --git a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
index 384ffb3d69ab..490a9e9358b3 100644
--- a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
+++ b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ struct vmem_altmap;
        if (___nr < NR_MEM_SECTIONS && online_section_nr(___nr) && \
            pfn_valid_within(___pfn))                              \
                ___page = pfn_to_page(___pfn);                     \
+       if (unlikely(___page && is_zone_device_page(___page)))     \
+               ___page = NULL;                                    \
        ___page;                                                   \
 })


Yeah, it's another is_zone_device_page(), but it should not be racy 
here, as we want to exclude, not include ZONE_DEVICE.
I don't have time to look into this right now, unfortunately.

--

Thanks,

David / dhildenb


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel