All the mail mirrored from lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: QEMU bumping memory bug analysis
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:45:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433853905.7108.550.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506091049160.19838@kaball.uk.xensource.com>

On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 11:14 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> I don't think that the current solution is inherently racy. If we are
> really interested in an honest evaluation of the current solution in
> terms of races, I would be happy to do so.

Consider a domain with 1M of RAM (==target and maxmem for the sake of
argument) and two simultaneous calls to libxl_set_memory_target, both
with relative=0 and enforce=1, one with target=3 and the other with
target=5.

target=3 call			target=5 call

				get ptr.max_memkb, gets 1

get ptr.max_memkb, gets 1
start transaction
do xenstore stuff, seeing target=1, setting target=3
memorykb = ptr.max_memkb - current_target_memkb + new_target_memkb;
memorykb = 1 - 1 + 3
xc_setmaxmem(3)
transaction commit (success)

Now target=maxmem=3

				start transaction
				do xenstore stuff, seeing target=3, setting target=5
				memorykb = ptr.max_memkb - current_target_memkb + new_target_memkb;
				memorykb = 1 - 3 + 5
				xc_setmaxmem(3)
				transaction commit (success)

Now target=5, maxmem=3.

The obvious fix of moving the get ptr.max_memkb inside the transaction
fails in a different way in the case where the first transaction commit
fails and is retried after the second one, I think.

Prior to 0c029c4da21 "libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem
offset on top of the current target" this issue didn't exist because
memorykb was just memorykb = new_target_memkb + videoram.

BTW, I noticed some other (unrelated) dubious stuff in there while
looking at this, in particular the setmaxmem is not rolled back if
set_pod_target fails. Also the transiently "wrong" maxmem between the
setmaxmem and a failed transaction getting redone might possibly give
rise to some interesting cases, especially if anything else fails the
second time around the loop.

> When I committed it, I didn't do it without thinking.

Likewise I thought about it when reviewing, but it seems we have both
missed an important aspect.

Ian.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-06-09 12:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-05 16:43 QEMU bumping memory bug analysis Wei Liu
2015-06-05 16:58 ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-05 17:13   ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-05 19:06     ` Wei Liu
2015-06-05 17:17   ` Andrew Cooper
2015-06-05 17:39   ` Wei Liu
2015-06-05 17:10 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-05 18:10   ` Wei Liu
2015-06-08 11:39     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 12:14       ` Andrew Cooper
2015-06-08 13:01         ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 13:33           ` Jan Beulich
2015-06-08 13:10       ` Wei Liu
2015-06-08 13:27         ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 13:32           ` Wei Liu
2015-06-08 13:38             ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 13:44               ` Andrew Cooper
2015-06-08 13:45                 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-05 18:49   ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-08 11:40     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 12:11       ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-08 13:22         ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 13:52           ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-08 14:20           ` George Dunlap
2015-06-08 15:01             ` Don Slutz
2015-06-08 15:37               ` George Dunlap
2015-06-08 16:06                 ` Don Slutz
2015-06-09 10:00                   ` George Dunlap
2015-06-09 10:17                     ` Wei Liu
2015-06-09 10:14                 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-09 11:20                   ` George Dunlap
2015-06-16 16:44                     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-09 12:45                   ` Ian Campbell [this message]
2015-06-17 13:35                     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-06-08 14:53         ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-06-08 15:20           ` George Dunlap
2015-06-08 15:42             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-06-08 14:14   ` George Dunlap

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1433853905.7108.550.camel@citrix.com \
    --to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=dslutz@verizon.com \
    --cc=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.