lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] IB/umem: use tgid instead of pid in ib_umem structure
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:38:53AM +0800, 858585 jemmy wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:51:15PM +0800, 858585 jemmy wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:14 AM, 858585 jemmy <jemmy858585@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:04:34PM +0800, Lidong Chen wrote:
> >> >>> The userspace may invoke ibv_reg_mr and ibv_dereg_mr by different threads.
> >> >>> If when ibv_dereg_mr invoke and the thread which invoked ibv_reg_mr has
> >> >>> exited, get_pid_task will return NULL, ib_umem_release does not decrease
> >> >>> mm->pinned_vm. This patch fixes it by use tgid.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@tencent.com>
> >> >>> drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 12 ++++++------
> >> >>> include/rdma/ib_umem.h | 2 +-
> >> >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are we even using a struct pid for this? Does anyone know?
> >> >
> >> > commit 87773dd56d5405ac28119fcfadacefd35877c18f add pid in ib_umem structure.
> >> >
> >> > and the comment has such information:
> >> > Later a different process with a different mm_struct than the one that
> >> > allocated the ib_umem struct
> >> > ends up releasing it which results in decrementing the new processes
> >> > mm->pinned_vm count past
> >> > zero and wrapping.
> >>
> >> I think a different process should not have the permission to release ib_umem.
> >> so maybe the reason is not a different process?
> >> can ib_umem_release be invoked in interrupt context?
> >
> > We plan to restore fork support and add some way to share MRs between
> > processes, so we must consider having a different process release the
> > umem than acquired it.
>
> If restore fork support, what is the expected behavior?
> If parent process pinned_vm is x, what is the child process pinned_vm
> value after fork? It reset to zero now.
> If the parent process call ibv_dereg_mr after fork, should the child
> process decrease pinned_vm?
> If the child process call ibv_dereg_mr after fork, should the parent
> process decrease pinned_vm?

If I recall the purpose of accessing the MM during de-register is to
undo the pinned pages change (pinned_vm) that register performed.

So, the semantic is simple, during deregister we must access excatly
the same MM that was used during register and undo the change to
pinned_vm.

The approach should be to find the most reliably way to hold a
reference to the MM that was used during register.

Apparently we can't just hold a ref on the mm (according to mm_get's
comment at least)

tgid is clearly a better indirect reference to the mm than pid (pid is
so obviously wrong)

But I am wondering why not just hold struct task here instead of tgid?
Isn't task->mm going to be more reliably than tgid->task->mm ??

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-08 08:30    [W:0.067 / U:4.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site