linux-kernel - Re: RCU+KVM: making CPU guest mode a quiescent state.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:56:47 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU+KVM: making CPU guest mode a quiescent state.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47:04AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 06:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:38:24PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>  Hello Paul,
> >>
> >>  I have a question about RCU + KVM. KVM does not hold any references to RCU
> >>  protected data when it switches CPU into a guest mode. In fact switching
> >>  to a guest mode is very similar to exiting to userspase from RCU point
> >>  of view. In addition CPU may stay in a guest mode for quite a long time
> >>  (up to one time slice). It looks like it will be beneficial to treat guest
> >>  mode as quiescent state, just like user-mode execution. How can this be
> >>  done? I was trying to find how RCU knows about cpu entering user-mode,
> >>  but it seems that it does this by checking CPU mode in a timer interrupt
> >>  (update_process_times()->rcu_check_callbacks()). This will not work for
> >>  guest mode detection since timer interrupt will kick CPU out of a guest
> >>  mode and timer interrupt will always see CPU in kernel mode. Do we have
> >>  a simple function to call to notify RCU that CPU passed quiescent state
> >>  which we can call just before entering guest?
> >
> >Hello, Gleb,
> >
> >You could call rcu_note_context_switch(), passing it the current
> >CPU.  Please note that preemption -must- be disabled when calling
> >this.  You could call this just after exiting the guest as well
> >as just before entering guest.
> >
> 
> It's expected that after exiting, we'd spend a very short time in
> the kernel, and then either re-enter the guest, exit to userspace,
> or switch to another task.  So I think calling it just before entry
> should be sufficient.
Definitely. This will allow other CPUs to complete rcu barrier much
earlier.

> 
> Looking at the code, I see rcu_note_context_switch() calls
> rcu_sched_qs(), which does
> 
>     rdp->passed_quiesc_completed = rdp->gpnum - 1;
>     barrier();
>     rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
> 
> and also calls rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(), which calls
> rcu_preempt_qs(), which does
> 
>     rdp->passed_quiesc_completed = rdp->gpnum - 1;
>     barrier();
>     rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
>     current->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS;
> 
> the similarity is remarkable.  Is this intended?  Or did I get lost
> in a maze of #ifdefs?
> 
One of them works on rcu_sched_data another on rcu_preempt_data as far
as I see.

--
			Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/