On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:44:50PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> 
> If the trylock on the hmm->mirrors_sem fails the function will return
> without decrementing the notifiers that were previously incremented. Since
> the caller will not call invalidate_range_end() on EAGAIN this will result
> in notifiers becoming permanently incremented and deadlock.
> 
> If the sync_cpu_device_pagetables() required blocking the function will
> not return EAGAIN even though the device continues to touch the
> pages. This is a violation of the mmu notifier contract.
> 
> Switch, and rename, the ranges_lock to a spin lock so we can reliably
> obtain it without blocking during error unwind.
> 
> The error unwind is necessary since the notifiers count must be held
> incremented across the call to sync_cpu_device_pagetables() as we cannot
> allow the range to become marked valid by a parallel
> invalidate_start/end() pair while doing sync_cpu_device_pagetables().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Philip Yang <[email protected]>
> ---
>  include/linux/hmm.h |  2 +-
>  mm/hmm.c            | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> index bf013e96525771..0fa8ea34ccef6d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hmm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
>  struct hmm {
>       struct mm_struct        *mm;
>       struct kref             kref;
> -     struct mutex            lock;
> +     spinlock_t              ranges_lock;
>       struct list_head        ranges;
>       struct list_head        mirrors;
>       struct mmu_notifier     mmu_notifier;
> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> index c0d43302fd6b2f..1172a4f0206963 100644
> --- a/mm/hmm.c
> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static struct hmm *hmm_get_or_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
>       init_rwsem(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
>       hmm->mmu_notifier.ops = NULL;
>       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hmm->ranges);
> -     mutex_init(&hmm->lock);
> +     spin_lock_init(&hmm->ranges_lock);
>       kref_init(&hmm->kref);
>       hmm->notifiers = 0;
>       hmm->mm = mm;
> @@ -124,18 +124,19 @@ static void hmm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct 
> mm_struct *mm)
>  {
>       struct hmm *hmm = container_of(mn, struct hmm, mmu_notifier);
>       struct hmm_mirror *mirror;
> +     unsigned long flags;
>  
>       /* Bail out if hmm is in the process of being freed */
>       if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&hmm->kref))
>               return;
>  
> -     mutex_lock(&hmm->lock);
> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&hmm->ranges_lock, flags);
>       /*
>        * Since hmm_range_register() holds the mmget() lock hmm_release() is
>        * prevented as long as a range exists.
>        */
>       WARN_ON(!list_empty(&hmm->ranges));
> -     mutex_unlock(&hmm->lock);
> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hmm->ranges_lock, flags);
>  
>       down_read(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
>       list_for_each_entry(mirror, &hmm->mirrors, list) {
> @@ -151,6 +152,23 @@ static void hmm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct 
> mm_struct *mm)
>       hmm_put(hmm);
>  }
>  
> +static void notifiers_decrement(struct hmm *hmm)
> +{
> +     lockdep_assert_held(&hmm->ranges_lock);
> +
> +     hmm->notifiers--;
> +     if (!hmm->notifiers) {

Nitpick, when doing dec and test or inc and test ops I find it much
easier to read if they are merged into one line, i.e.

        if (!--hmm->notifiers) {

Otherwise this looks fine:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Reply via email to