Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH XEN v5 07/23] tools: Refactor /dev/xen/gnt{dev, shr} wrappers into libxengnttab.

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 15:38 -0500, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
> On 13/11/15 10:02, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 15:03 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH XEN v5 07/23] tools: Refactor
> > > /dev/xen/gnt{dev,shr} wrappers into libxengnttab."):
> > > > libxengnttab will provide a stable API and ABI for accessing the
> > > > grant table devices.
> > > > 
> > > > The functions are moved into the xengnt{tab,shr} namespace to make
> > > > a
> > > > clean break from libxc and avoid ambiguity regarding which
> > > > interfaces
> > > > are stable.
> > > 
> > > I have reviewed the API.ÂÂMostly this produced questions...
> > 
> > Yes, thanks this is the sort of feedback I was looking for before we
> > call
> > this a stable interface.
> > 
> > Some of my answers are of the "yes, we should decide that" variety.
> > 
> > Daniel, I've added you because some of the questions below relate to
> > the
> > notification mechanism and to gntshr which I don't really understand
> > (not
> > that I really understand gnttab either).
> 
> Responses below.

Thanks.

> ÂÂI also agree that unifying the interfaces would be
> better.
> 
> [...]
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * Memory maps a grant reference from one domain to a local
> > > > address
> > > > range.
> > > > + * Mappings should be unmapped with xengnttab_munmap. If
> > > > notify_offset
> > > > or
> > > > + * notify_port are not -1, this version will attempt to set up an
> > > > unmap
> > > > + * notification at the given offset and event channel. When the
> > > > page
> > > > is
> > > > + * unmapped, the byte at the given offset will be zeroed and a
> > > > wakeup
> > > > will be
> > > > + * sent to the given event channel.ÂÂLogs errors.
> > > 
> > > What happens if the unmap notification cannot be set up ?
> > > 
> > > Also "when the page is unmapped" makes it sound like you mean
> > > xengnttab_munmap but actually I think this is when the grant is
> > > withdrawn by the grantor ?
> > > 
> > > If the grant is withdrawn by the grantor, does the page become
> > > unuseable immediately ?ÂÂIf so, how can anyone ever use this safely ?
> > 
> > Daniel, could you answer these ones please.
> 
> This is intended to allow the kernel to send a close-request notification
> when the application that allocated the grant page exits without calling
> a proper shutdown (i.e. it crashes, calls _exit, calls execve, etc).

That is the kernel of the grantor or grantee process? It sounds like
grantor tells grantee (who would then be expected to unmap?)

Who actually does the unmap, the grantee process or their kernel? I suppose
the process, which is expected to be watching for the notification and is
required to do the unmap itself. IOW the "munmap notification" is a request
to please munmap, not a notification that something has been unmapped out
from beneath the calling process.

What happens if the unmap notification cannot be set up? Does the call fail
(and unmap what it has done) or does it succeed?

I think the answer to the other two questions depend on the clarifications
above, but I think it is the case that nothing is unmapped automatically,
all that this does is give you a result from evtchn_poll etc with the
expectation that the caller will call xengnttab_munmap in a controlled way
by themselves.

> Without this signal, the kernel has no way to request that the mapper of
> the page release it, and since Xen has no grant revocation mechanism, the
> page will likely be tied up until the process on the other side is told to
> release the page through some other method.



> 
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Creates and shares pages with another domain.
> > > > + *
> > > ...
> > > > +void *xengntshr_share_pages(xengntshr_handle *xgs, uint32_t domid,
> > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂint count, uint32_t *refs, int
> > > > writable);
> > > 
> > > Can this fail ?ÂÂCan it partially succeed ?
> > 
> > Daniel?
> 
> It can fail if you are out of pages to grant (there is a module parameter
> that can be adjusted via sysfs for the maximum), or in the unlikely case
> that the kernel itself is out of room in its grant mapping table (or if
> the syscall itself encounters -ENOMEM).

Does it either completely succeed or undo partial work, or does it return
partial success somehow?

> 
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Creates and shares a page with another domain, with unmap
> > > > notification.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @parm xgs a handle to an open grant sharing instance
> > > > + * @parm domid the domain to share memory with
> > > > + * @parm refs the grant reference of the pages (output)
> > > > + * @parm writable true if the other domain can write to the page
> > > > + * @parm notify_offset The byte offset in the page to use for
> > > > unmap
> > > > + *ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂnotification; -1 for none.
> > > > + * @parm notify_port The event channel port to use for unmap
> > > > notify,
> > > > or -1
> > > > + * @return local mapping of the page
> > > > + */
> > > > +void *xengntshr_share_page_notify(xengntshr_handle *xgs, uint32_t
> > > > domid,
> > > 
> > > What is this `unmap notification' ?
> > 
> > Daniel?
> 
> As mentioned above, it is a way for the kernel to request for the other
> side to unmap a page.ÂÂIt is probably easiest to understand if looking
> at the libvchan driver: one byte of the page is a "status" byte, and
> when the side using xengntshr exits or dies, this byte is set to zero
> and the event channel is notified.ÂÂWhen the peer is woken by the notify
> and sees the state byte set to zero, it removes its own mappings so that
> the shared pages can be freed.

This is the sending end of the notification requested by the caller of
xengnttab_map_grant_ref_notify I think?

> 
> > > 
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Unmaps the @count pages starting at @start_address, which were
> > > > mapped by a
> > > > + * call to xengntshr_share_*. Never logs.
> > > 
> > > Linewrap in the comment.
> > > 
> > > > + */
> > > > +int xengntshr_munmap(xengntshr_handle *xgs, void *start_address,
> > > > uint32_t count);
> > > 
> > > What effect does this have on the peer ?
> > 
> > Daniel?
> 
> If this removes the (final copy of the) mapping and a notify offset/port
> is set, that processing happens.ÂÂOtherwise, the peer cannot tell when
> this is called.

So this will always success (I think?) but the underlying page cannot be
freed until the other end unmaps it (whether because of the notification of
some other reason).

What is the status of the memory at start_address between the call to
xengntshr_munmap and the otherend doingÂxengnttab_munmap?

What is the status of the mapping made by the peer via
xengnttab_map_grant_ref_notify in that same interval?

Who is responsible for reclaiming the underlying memory, the kernel or the
process?

Thanks,
Ian.

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