[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <640874638.2724253.1467136598812.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: yunhong jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: vmx: fix underflow in TSC deadline calculation
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > index fdc05ae..b15e32a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > @@ -1454,11 +1454,18 @@ static void start_apic_timer(struct kvm_lapic
> > *apic) /* lapic timer in tsc deadline mode */
> > u64 tscdeadline = apic->lapic_timer.tscdeadline;
> >
> > - if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer &&
> > - !kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer(apic->vcpu,
> > tscdeadline)) {
> > - apic->lapic_timer.hv_timer_in_use = true;
> > - trace_kvm_hv_timer_state(apic->vcpu->vcpu_id,
> > + if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer) {
> > + if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer(apic->vcpu,
>
> Would it be better that if set_hv_timer fails, we clear the vmx timer (i.e. the
> VMCS field) before return the failure? I'm not sure if it make sense to clear
> the previous setup if a new setup fails, although it seems OK for me, since
> we have to cancel the hv_timer anyway.
Good question. I think we should abstract a little the set_hv_timer and
cancel_hv_timer calls, for example with a new function start_hv_tscdeadline.
It's also simpler to avoid the race window by disabling interrupts around the
calls to set_hv_timer and hrtimer_cancel. I'll see what I can come up with.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists