[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14147680-740d-6e7f-e00d-aa7698fd2ba6@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:37:32 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/24] kvm: x86/mmu: Protect tdp_mmu_pages with a lock
On 12/01/21 19:10, Ben Gardon wrote:
> + * May be acquired under the MMU lock in read mode or non-overlapping
> + * with the MMU lock.
> + */
> + spinlock_t tdp_mmu_pages_lock;
Is this correct? My understanding is that:
- you can take tdp_mmu_pages_lock from a shared MMU lock critical section
- you don't need to take tdp_mmu_pages_lock from an exclusive MMU lock
critical section, because you can't be concurrent with a shared critical
section
- but then, you can't take tdp_mmu_pages_lock outside the MMU lock,
because you could have
write_lock(mmu_lock)
spin_lock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock)
do tdp_mmu_pages_lock stuff !!! do tdp_mmu_pages_lock stuff
write_unlock(mmu_lock)
spin_unlock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock)
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists