[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150206231511.GA18934@lerouge>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 00:15:14 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
mingo@...nel.orgm, ak@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
lcapitulino@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rcu,nohz: add state parameter to
context_tracking_user_enter/exit
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 01:51:56PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/06/2015 01:23 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 01:20:21PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: On
> > 02/06/2015 12:22 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 03:23:48PM -0500, riel@...hat.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add the expected ctx_state as a parameter to
> >>>>> context_tracking_user_enter and
> >>>>> context_tracking_user_exit, allowing the same functions to
> >>>>> not just track kernel <> user space switching, but also
> >>>>> kernel <> guest transitions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> You should consider using guest_enter() and guest_exit()
> >>>> instead. These are context tracking APIs too but specifically
> >>>> for guest.
> >
> > What do you mean instead? KVM already uses those.
> >
> > I just wanted to avoid duplicating the code...
> >
> >> I mean you can call rcu_user APIs directly from
> >> guest_enter/exit. You don't really need to call the
> >> context_tracking_user functions since guest_enter/guest_exit
> >> already handle the vtime accounting.
>
> I would still have to modify exception_enter and exception_exit,
> and with them context_tracking_user_enter and
> context_tracking_user_exit.
>
> We have to re-enable RCU when an exception happens.
>
> I suspect exceptions in a guest just trigger VMEXIT, and we
> figure later why the exception happened. However, if we were
> to get an exception during the code where we transition into
> or out of guest mode, we would still need exception_enter
> and exception_exit...
Ah that's a fair point. I didn't think about that. Ok then a real
IN_GUEST mode makes sense. And context_tracking_user_enter/exit() can
be reused as is indeed.
Just a few things then:
1) In this case rename context_tracking_user_enter/exit() to
context_tracking_enter() and context_tracking_exit(), since it's not
anymore about user only but about any generic context.
2) We have the "WARN_ON_ONCE(!current->mm);" condition that is a debug
check specific to userspace transitions because kernel threads aren't
expected to resume to userspace. Can we also expect that we never switch
to/from guest from a kernel thread? AFAICS this happens from an ioctl (thus
user task) in x86 for kvm. But I only know this case.
3) You might want to update a few comments that assume we only deal with
userspace transitions.
4) trace_user_enter/exit() should stay user-transitions specific.
Thanks.
--
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