pet...@redhat.com writes:

> From: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
>
> As reported correctly by Fabiano [1], MultiFDSendParams.packet_num is buggy
> to be assigned and stored.  Consider two consequent operations of: (1)
> queue a job into multifd send thread X, then (2) queue another sync request
> to the same send thread X.  Then the MultiFDSendParams.packet_num will be
> assigned twice, and the first assignment can get lost already.
>
> To avoid that, we move the packet_num assignment from p->packet_num into
> where the thread will fill in the packet.  Use atomic operations to protect
> the field, making sure there's no race.
>
> Note that atomic fetch_add() may not be good for scaling purposes, however
> multifd should be fine as number of threads should normally not go beyond
> 16 threads.  Let's leave that concern for later but fix the issue first.
>
> There's also a trick on how to make it always work even on 32 bit hosts for
> uint64_t packet number.  Switching to uintptr_t as of now to simply the
> case.  It will cause packet number to overflow easier on 32 bit, but that
> shouldn't be a major concern for now as 32 bit systems is not the major
> audience for any performance concerns like what multifd wants to address.
>
> We also need to move multifd_send_state definition upper, so that
> multifd_send_fill_packet() can reference it.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/87o7d1jlu5....@suse.de
>
> Reported-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>

Elena had reported this in October already.

Reported-by: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimts...@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de>

> ---
>  migration/multifd.h |  2 --
>  migration/multifd.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/multifd.h b/migration/multifd.h
> index 9b40a53cb6..98876ff94a 100644
> --- a/migration/multifd.h
> +++ b/migration/multifd.h
> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ typedef struct {
>      bool running;
>      /* multifd flags for each packet */
>      uint32_t flags;
> -    /* global number of generated multifd packets */
> -    uint64_t packet_num;
>      /*
>       * The sender thread has work to do if either of below boolean is set.
>       *
> diff --git a/migration/multifd.c b/migration/multifd.c
> index 130f86a1fb..b317d57d61 100644
> --- a/migration/multifd.c
> +++ b/migration/multifd.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,35 @@ typedef struct {
>      uint64_t unused2[4];    /* Reserved for future use */
>  } __attribute__((packed)) MultiFDInit_t;
>  
> +struct {
> +    MultiFDSendParams *params;
> +    /* array of pages to sent */
> +    MultiFDPages_t *pages;
> +    /*
> +     * Global number of generated multifd packets.
> +     *
> +     * Note that we used 'uintptr_t' because it'll naturally support atomic
> +     * operations on both 32bit / 64 bits hosts.  It means on 32bit systems
> +     * multifd will overflow the packet_num easier, but that should be
> +     * fine.
> +     *
> +     * Another option is to use QEMU's Stat64 then it'll be 64 bits on all
> +     * hosts, however so far it does not support atomic fetch_add() yet.
> +     * Make it easy for now.
> +     */
> +    uintptr_t packet_num;
> +    /* send channels ready */
> +    QemuSemaphore channels_ready;
> +    /*
> +     * Have we already run terminate threads.  There is a race when it
> +     * happens that we got one error while we are exiting.
> +     * We will use atomic operations.  Only valid values are 0 and 1.
> +     */
> +    int exiting;
> +    /* multifd ops */
> +    MultiFDMethods *ops;
> +} *multifd_send_state;
> +
>  /* Multifd without compression */
>  
>  /**
> @@ -292,13 +321,16 @@ void multifd_send_fill_packet(MultiFDSendParams *p)
>  {
>      MultiFDPacket_t *packet = p->packet;
>      MultiFDPages_t *pages = p->pages;
> +    uint64_t packet_num;
>      int i;
>  
>      packet->flags = cpu_to_be32(p->flags);
>      packet->pages_alloc = cpu_to_be32(p->pages->allocated);
>      packet->normal_pages = cpu_to_be32(pages->num);
>      packet->next_packet_size = cpu_to_be32(p->next_packet_size);
> -    packet->packet_num = cpu_to_be64(p->packet_num);
> +
> +    packet_num = qatomic_fetch_inc(&multifd_send_state->packet_num);
> +    packet->packet_num = cpu_to_be64(packet_num);
>  
>      if (pages->block) {
>          strncpy(packet->ramblock, pages->block->idstr, 256);
> @@ -314,7 +346,7 @@ void multifd_send_fill_packet(MultiFDSendParams *p)
>      p->packets_sent++;
>      p->total_normal_pages += pages->num;
>  
> -    trace_multifd_send(p->id, p->packet_num, pages->num, p->flags,
> +    trace_multifd_send(p->id, packet_num, pages->num, p->flags,
>                         p->next_packet_size);
>  }
>  
> @@ -398,24 +430,6 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams 
> *p, Error **errp)
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
> -struct {
> -    MultiFDSendParams *params;
> -    /* array of pages to sent */
> -    MultiFDPages_t *pages;
> -    /* global number of generated multifd packets */
> -    uint64_t packet_num;
> -    /* send channels ready */
> -    QemuSemaphore channels_ready;
> -    /*
> -     * Have we already run terminate threads.  There is a race when it
> -     * happens that we got one error while we are exiting.
> -     * We will use atomic operations.  Only valid values are 0 and 1.
> -     */
> -    int exiting;
> -    /* multifd ops */
> -    MultiFDMethods *ops;
> -} *multifd_send_state;
> -
>  static bool multifd_send_should_exit(void)
>  {
>      return qatomic_read(&multifd_send_state->exiting);
> @@ -497,7 +511,6 @@ static bool multifd_send_pages(void)
>       */
>      assert(qatomic_read(&p->pending_job) == false);
>      qatomic_set(&p->pending_job, true);
> -    p->packet_num = multifd_send_state->packet_num++;
>      multifd_send_state->pages = p->pages;
>      p->pages = pages;
>      qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
> @@ -730,7 +743,6 @@ int multifd_send_sync_main(void)
>          trace_multifd_send_sync_main_signal(p->id);
>  
>          qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
> -        p->packet_num = multifd_send_state->packet_num++;
>          /*
>           * We should be the only user so far, so not possible to be set by
>           * others concurrently.

Reply via email to