Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/hap: Resolve mm-lock order violations when forking VMs with nested p2m

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 7:26 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 06.01.2021 17:26, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:11 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 06.01.2021 16:29, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:03 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 04.01.2021 18:41, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>>>> +        for ( i = 0; i < MAX_NESTEDP2M; i++ )
> >>>>> +            p2m_lock(d->arch.nested_p2m[i]);
> >>>>
> >>>> From a brief scan, this is the first instance of acquiring all
> >>>> nested p2m locks in one go. Ordering these by index is perhaps
> >>>> fine, but I think this wants spelling out in e.g. mm-locks.h. Of
> >>>> course the question is if you really need to go this far, i.e.
> >>>> whether really all of the locks need holding. This is even more
> >>>> so with p2m_flush_table_locked() not really looking to be a
> >>>> quick operation, when there have many pages accumulated for it.
> >>>> I.e. the overall lock holding time may turn out even more
> >>>> excessive this way than it apparently already is.
> >>>
> >>> I agree this is not ideal but it gets things working without Xen
> >>> crashing. I would prefer if we could get rid of the mm lock ordering
> >>> altogether in this context.
> >>
> >> How would this do any good? You'd then be at risk of ac"ually
> >> hitting a lock order violation. These are often quite hard to
> >> debug.
> >
> > The whole lock ordering is just a pain and it gets us into situations
> > like this where we are forced to take a bunch of locks to just change
> > one thing. I don't have a better solution but I'm also not 100%
> > convinced that this lock ordering setup is even sane. Sometimes it
> > really ought to be enough to just take one "mm master lock" without
> > having to chase down all of them individually.
>
> The concept of a "master lock" would imply all parties wanting to
> make _any_ change anywhere (or even just not being certain whether
> a change will need making) would need to hold it for writing. This
> is clearly against the overall goal of reducing lock contention on
> in particular the p2m lock.
>
> >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> >>>>> @@ -1598,8 +1598,17 @@ void
> >>>>>  p2m_flush_nestedp2m(struct domain *d)
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>>      int i;
> >>>>> +    struct p2m_domain *p2m;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>      for ( i = 0; i < MAX_NESTEDP2M; i++ )
> >>>>> -        p2m_flush_table(d->arch.nested_p2m[i]);
> >>>>> +    {
> >>>>> +        p2m = d->arch.nested_p2m[i];
> >>>>
> >>>> Please move the declaration here, making this the variable's
> >>>> initializer (unless line length constraints make the latter
> >>>> undesirable).
> >>>
> >>> I really don't get what difference this would make.
> >>
> >> Both choice of (generally) inappropriate types (further up)
> >> and placement of declarations (here) (and of course also
> >> other style violations) can set bad precedents even if in a
> >> specific case it may not matter much. So yes, it may be
> >> good enough here, but it would violate our desire to
> >> - use unsigned types when a variable will hold only non-
> >>   negative values (which in the general case may improve
> >>   generated code in particular on x86-64),
> >> - limit the scopes of variables as much as possible, to
> >>   more easily spot inappropriate uses (like bypassing
> >>   initialization).
> >>
> >> This code here actually demonstrates such a bad precedent,
> >> using plain int for the loop induction variable. While I
> >> can't be any way near sure, there's a certain chance you
> >> actually took it and copied it to
> >> __mem_sharing_unshare_page(). The chance of such happening
> >> is what we'd like to reduce over time.
> >
> > Yes, I copied it from p2m.c. All I meant was that such minor changes
> > are generally speaking not worth a round-trip of sending new patches.
> > I obviously don't care whether this is signed or unsigned. Minor stuff
> > like that could be changed on commit and is not even worth having a
> > discussion about.
>
> I'm sorry, but no. Committing ought to be a purely mechanical
> thing. It is a _courtesy_ of the committer if they offer to
> make adjustments. If us offering this regularly gets taken as
> "expected behavior", I'm afraid I personally would stop making
> such an offer, and instead insist on further round trips.

So you requested changes I consider purely cosmetic, no objections to
any of them. It would be faster if you just made those changes -
literally 2 seconds - instead of insisting on this back and forth. I
really have no idea under what metric this saves *you* time. Now you
have to write emails to point out the issues and review the patch
twice, including the lag time of when the sender has time to do the
changes and resend the patches. I think this process is just bad for
everyone involved. And now you are saying out of principle you would
be insisting on more of this just to prove a point? Yea, that would
certainly solve the problem of commit lag and backlog of reviewing
patches. But it's your call, I really don't care enough to argue any
more about it.

Tamas