[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52FDF013.2030101@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:29:39 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
paulus@...ba.org, oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, walken@...gle.com,
ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/52] x86, kvm: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration
Il 14/02/2014 08:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat ha scritto:
> Subsystems that want to register CPU hotplug callbacks, as well as perform
> initialization for the CPUs that are already online, often do it as shown
> below:
>
> get_online_cpus();
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> init_cpu(cpu);
>
> register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>
> put_online_cpus();
>
> This is wrong, since it is prone to ABBA deadlocks involving the
> cpu_add_remove_lock and the cpu_hotplug.lock (when running concurrently
> with CPU hotplug operations).
>
> Instead, the correct and race-free way of performing the callback
> registration is:
>
> cpu_notifier_register_begin();
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> init_cpu(cpu);
>
> /* Note the use of the double underscored version of the API */
> __register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>
> cpu_notifier_register_done();
>
>
> Fix the kvm code in x86 by using this latter form of callback registration.
>
> Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 39c28f09..0166923 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -5365,7 +5365,8 @@ static void kvm_timer_init(void)
> int cpu;
>
> max_tsc_khz = tsc_khz;
> - register_hotcpu_notifier(&kvmclock_cpu_notifier_block);
> +
> + cpu_notifier_register_begin();
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC)) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> struct cpufreq_policy policy;
> @@ -5382,6 +5383,10 @@ static void kvm_timer_init(void)
> pr_debug("kvm: max_tsc_khz = %ld\n", max_tsc_khz);
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, NULL, 1);
> +
> + __register_hotcpu_notifier(&kvmclock_cpu_notifier_block);
> + cpu_notifier_register_done();
> +
> }
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, current_vcpu);
>
Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists