| Message ID | 20201130131104.10600-2-zhukeqian1@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bugfix: Decrease dirty bitmap blocks after we remove ramblock | expand |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:11:03PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote: > @@ -1839,15 +1841,26 @@ static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, > new_blocks = g_malloc(sizeof(*new_blocks) + > sizeof(new_blocks->blocks[0]) * new_num_blocks); > > - if (old_num_blocks) { > + if (cpy_num_blocks) { > memcpy(new_blocks->blocks, old_blocks->blocks, > - old_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); > + cpy_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); > } > > - for (j = old_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { > - new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > + if (extend) { > + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { > + new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > + } > + } else { > + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < old_num_blocks; j++) { > + /* We are safe to free it, for that it is out-of-use */ > + g_free(old_blocks->blocks[j]); This looks unsafe because this code uses Read Copy Update (RCU): old_blocks = qatomic_rcu_read(&ram_list.dirty_memory[i]); Other threads may still be accessing old_blocks so we cannot modify it immediately. Changes need to be deferred until the next RCU period. g_free_rcu() needs to be used to do this.
On 2020/12/17 18:05, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:11:03PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote: >> @@ -1839,15 +1841,26 @@ static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, >> new_blocks = g_malloc(sizeof(*new_blocks) + >> sizeof(new_blocks->blocks[0]) * new_num_blocks); >> >> - if (old_num_blocks) { >> + if (cpy_num_blocks) { >> memcpy(new_blocks->blocks, old_blocks->blocks, >> - old_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); >> + cpy_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); >> } >> >> - for (j = old_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { >> - new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); >> + if (extend) { >> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { >> + new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); >> + } >> + } else { >> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < old_num_blocks; j++) { >> + /* We are safe to free it, for that it is out-of-use */ >> + g_free(old_blocks->blocks[j]); > > This looks unsafe because this code uses Read Copy Update (RCU): > > old_blocks = qatomic_rcu_read(&ram_list.dirty_memory[i]); > > Other threads may still be accessing old_blocks so we cannot modify it > immediately. Changes need to be deferred until the next RCU period. > g_free_rcu() needs to be used to do this. > Hi Stefan, You are right. I was thinking about the VM life cycle before. We shrink the dirty_memory when we are removing unused ramblock. However we can not rely on this. I also notice that "Organization into blocks allows dirty memory to grow (but not shrink) under RCU". Why "but not shrink"? Any thoughts? [...] * Organization into blocks allows dirty memory to grow (but not shrink) under * RCU. When adding new RAMBlocks requires the dirty memory to grow, a new * DirtyMemoryBlocks array is allocated with pointers to existing blocks kept * the same. Other threads can safely access existing blocks while dirty * memory is being grown. When no threads are using the old DirtyMemoryBlocks * anymore it is freed by RCU (but the underlying blocks stay because they are * pointed to from the new DirtyMemoryBlocks). */ #define DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE ((ram_addr_t)256 * 1024 * 8) typedef struct { struct rcu_head rcu; unsigned long *blocks[]; } DirtyMemoryBlocks; [...] Thanks, Keqian
[...] >>> - for (j = old_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { >>> - new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); >>> + if (extend) { >>> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { >>> + new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); >>> + } >>> + } else { >>> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < old_num_blocks; j++) { >>> + /* We are safe to free it, for that it is out-of-use */ >>> + g_free(old_blocks->blocks[j]); >> >> This looks unsafe because this code uses Read Copy Update (RCU): >> >> old_blocks = qatomic_rcu_read(&ram_list.dirty_memory[i]); >> >> Other threads may still be accessing old_blocks so we cannot modify it >> immediately. Changes need to be deferred until the next RCU period. >> g_free_rcu() needs to be used to do this. >> > Hi Stefan, > > You are right. I was thinking about the VM life cycle before. We shrink the dirty_memory > when we are removing unused ramblock. However we can not rely on this. > > I also notice that "Organization into blocks allows dirty memory to grow (but not shrink) > under RCU". Why "but not shrink"? Any thoughts? Hi, After my analysis, it's both unsafe to grow or shrink under RCU. ram_list.blocks and ram_list.dirty_memory[X] are closely related and both protected by RCU. For the lockless RCU readers, we can't promise they always see consistent version of the two structures. For grow, a reader may see un-growed @dirty_memory and growed @blocks, causing out-of-bound access. For shrink, a reader may see shrinked @dirty_memory and un-shrinked @blocks, causing out-of-bound access too. I think it's a design problem, RCU can just protect one structure, not two. Thanks, Keqian. > > [...] > * Organization into blocks allows dirty memory to grow (but not shrink) under > * RCU. When adding new RAMBlocks requires the dirty memory to grow, a new > * DirtyMemoryBlocks array is allocated with pointers to existing blocks kept > * the same. Other threads can safely access existing blocks while dirty > * memory is being grown. When no threads are using the old DirtyMemoryBlocks > * anymore it is freed by RCU (but the underlying blocks stay because they are > * pointed to from the new DirtyMemoryBlocks). > */ > #define DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE ((ram_addr_t)256 * 1024 * 8) > typedef struct { > struct rcu_head rcu; > unsigned long *blocks[]; > } DirtyMemoryBlocks; > [...] > > Thanks, > Keqian > > > . >
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 03:11:53PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote: > > [...] > > >>> - for (j = old_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { > >>> - new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > >>> + if (extend) { > >>> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { > >>> + new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > >>> + } > >>> + } else { > >>> + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < old_num_blocks; j++) { > >>> + /* We are safe to free it, for that it is out-of-use */ > >>> + g_free(old_blocks->blocks[j]); > >> > >> This looks unsafe because this code uses Read Copy Update (RCU): > >> > >> old_blocks = qatomic_rcu_read(&ram_list.dirty_memory[i]); > >> > >> Other threads may still be accessing old_blocks so we cannot modify it > >> immediately. Changes need to be deferred until the next RCU period. > >> g_free_rcu() needs to be used to do this. > >> > > Hi Stefan, > > > > You are right. I was thinking about the VM life cycle before. We shrink the dirty_memory > > when we are removing unused ramblock. However we can not rely on this. > > > > I also notice that "Organization into blocks allows dirty memory to grow (but not shrink) > > under RCU". Why "but not shrink"? Any thoughts? > Hi, > > After my analysis, it's both unsafe to grow or shrink under RCU. > > ram_list.blocks and ram_list.dirty_memory[X] are closely related and > both protected by RCU. For the lockless RCU readers, we can't promise they > always see consistent version of the two structures. > > For grow, a reader may see un-growed @dirty_memory and growed @blocks, causing out-of-bound access. Growth is safe because other threads only access pre-existing ranges (below the old maximum size). They will only start accessing the newly added ranges after resize. Did you find a code path where this constraint is violated? Stefan
diff --git a/softmmu/physmem.c b/softmmu/physmem.c index 3027747c03..3e4f29f126 100644 --- a/softmmu/physmem.c +++ b/softmmu/physmem.c @@ -1816,17 +1816,19 @@ void qemu_ram_msync(RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t start, ram_addr_t length) } /* Called with ram_list.mutex held */ -static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, +static void dirty_memory_resize(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, ram_addr_t new_ram_size) { ram_addr_t old_num_blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(old_ram_size, DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); ram_addr_t new_num_blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(new_ram_size, DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); + ram_addr_t cpy_num_blocks = MIN(old_num_blocks, new_num_blocks); + bool extend = new_num_blocks > old_num_blocks; int i; - /* Only need to extend if block count increased */ - if (new_num_blocks <= old_num_blocks) { + /* Only need to resize if block count changed */ + if (new_num_blocks == old_num_blocks) { return; } @@ -1839,15 +1841,26 @@ static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, new_blocks = g_malloc(sizeof(*new_blocks) + sizeof(new_blocks->blocks[0]) * new_num_blocks); - if (old_num_blocks) { + if (cpy_num_blocks) { memcpy(new_blocks->blocks, old_blocks->blocks, - old_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); + cpy_num_blocks * sizeof(old_blocks->blocks[0])); } - for (j = old_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { - new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); + if (extend) { + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < new_num_blocks; j++) { + new_blocks->blocks[j] = bitmap_new(DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); + } + } else { + for (j = cpy_num_blocks; j < old_num_blocks; j++) { + /* We are safe to free it, for that it is out-of-use */ + g_free(old_blocks->blocks[j]); + } } + if (!new_num_blocks) { + g_free(new_blocks); + new_blocks = NULL; + } qatomic_rcu_set(&ram_list.dirty_memory[i], new_blocks); if (old_blocks) { @@ -1894,7 +1907,7 @@ static void ram_block_add(RAMBlock *new_block, Error **errp, bool shared) new_ram_size = MAX(old_ram_size, (new_block->offset + new_block->max_length) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS); if (new_ram_size > old_ram_size) { - dirty_memory_extend(old_ram_size, new_ram_size); + dirty_memory_resize(old_ram_size, new_ram_size); } /* Keep the list sorted from biggest to smallest block. Unlike QTAILQ, * QLIST (which has an RCU-friendly variant) does not have insertion at
When we remove a ramblock, we should decrease the dirty bitmap blocks of ramlist to avoid memory leakage. This patch rebuilds dirty_memory_ extend to support both "extend" and "decrease". Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> --- softmmu/physmem.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)