Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 2/4] xen/blkback: Squeeze page pools if a memory pressure is detected

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17.12.19 14:15, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:39:15 +0100 "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:48:03PM +0100, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > On on, 16 Dec 2019 17:23:44 +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16.12.19 17:15, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:37:20 +0100 SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:45:25 +0100 SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> > > > > > > @@ -824,6 +824,24 @@ static void frontend_changed(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > >    
> > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > +/* Once a memory pressure is detected, squeeze free page pools for a while. */
> > > > > > > +static unsigned int buffer_squeeze_duration_ms = 10;
> > > > > > > +module_param_named(buffer_squeeze_duration_ms,
> > > > > > > +               buffer_squeeze_duration_ms, int, 0644);
> > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(buffer_squeeze_duration_ms,
> > > > > > > +"Duration in ms to squeeze pages buffer when a memory pressure is detected");
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * Callback received when the memory pressure is detected.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +static void reclaim_memory(struct xenbus_device *dev)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +       struct backend_info *be = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       be->blkif->buffer_squeeze_end = jiffies +
> > > > > > > +               msecs_to_jiffies(buffer_squeeze_duration_ms);
> > > > > > This callback might race with 'xen_blkbk_probe()'.  The race could result in
> > > > > > __NULL dereferencing__, as 'xen_blkbk_probe()' sets '->blkif' after it links
> > > > > > 'be' to the 'dev'.  Please _don't merge_ this patch now!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will do more test and share results.  Meanwhile, if you have any opinion,
> > > > > > please let me know.
> > > I reduced system memory and attached bunch of devices in short time so that
> > > memory pressure occurs while device attachments are ongoing.  Under this
> > > circumstance, I was able to see the race.
> > >
> > > > > Not only '->blkif', but 'be' itself also coule be a NULL.  As similar
> > > > > concurrency issues could be in other drivers in their way, I suggest to change
> > > > > the reclaim callback ('->reclaim_memory') to be called for each driver instead
> > > > > of each device.  Then, each driver could be able to deal with its concurrency
> > > > > issues by itself.
> > > > Hmm, I don't like that. This would need to be changed back in case we
> > > > add per-guest quota.
> > > Extending this callback in that way would be still not too hard.  We could use
> > > the argument to the callback.  I would keep the argument of the callback to
> > > 'struct device *' as is, and will add a comment saying 'NULL' value of the
> > > argument means every devices.  As an example, xenbus would pass NULL-ending
> > > array of the device pointers that need to free its resources.
> > >
> > > After seeing this race, I am now also thinking it could be better to delegate
> > > detailed control of each device to its driver, as some drivers have some
> > > complicated and unique relation with its devices.
> > >
> > > > Wouldn't a get_device() before calling the callback and a put_device()
> > > > afterwards avoid that problem?
> > > I didn't used the reference count manipulation operations because other similar
> > > parts also didn't.  But, if there is no implicit reference count guarantee, it
> > > seems those operations are indeed necessary.
> > >
> > > That said, as get/put operations only adjust the reference count, those will
> > > not make the callback to wait until the linking of the 'backend' and 'blkif' to
> > > the device (xen_blkbk_probe()) is finished.  Thus, the race could still happen.
> > > Or, am I missing something?
> > I would expect the device is not added to the list of backend devices
> > until the probe hook has finished with a non-error return code. Ie:
> > bus_for_each_dev should _not_ iterate over devices for which the probe
> > function hasn't been run to competition without errors.
> >
> > The same way I would expect the remove hook to first remove the device
> > from the list of backend devices and then run the remove hook.
> >
> > blkback uses an ad-hoc reference counting mechanism, but if the above
> > assumptions are true I think it would be enough to take an extra
> > reference in xen_blkbk_probe and drop it in xen_blkbk_remove.
> Well, if the assumption is true, wouldn't the Juergen's approach solved the
> problem?  As previously said, I tried the approach but failed to solve this
> race.  The assumption is wrong or I missed something.  I think Juergen also
> think the assumption is not true as he suggested use of locking but not sure.
> Juergen, if I misunderstood, please let me know.
bus_for_each_dev() does no locking at all. All it does is
taking krefs on the iterated objects in order to avoid them
to be freed under its feet.


Juergen

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