[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANgfPd87mz5Gqod6iRsqbdbUKxhETTrMp1R6ZqSerjvB0+mO8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:48:37 -0700
From: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
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 08/13] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect the tdp_mmu_roots list with RCU
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:37 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 31/03/21 23:08, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > Protect the contents of the TDP MMU roots list with RCU in preparation
> > for a future patch which will allow the iterator macro to be used under
> > the MMU lock in read mode.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon<bgardon@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> > + list_del_rcu(&root->link);
> > + spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
>
>
> Please update the comment above tdp_mmu_pages_lock in
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h as well.
Ah yes, thank you for catching that. Will do.
>
> > /* Only safe under the MMU lock in write mode, without yielding. */
> > #define for_each_tdp_mmu_root(_kvm, _root) \
> > - list_for_each_entry(_root, &_kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_roots, link)
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(_root, &_kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_roots, link, \
> > + lockdep_is_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock))
>
> This should also add "... ||
> lockdep_is_help(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock)", if only for
> documentation purposes.
Good idea. I hope we never have a function try to protect its loop
over the roots with that lock, but it would be correct.
>
> Paolo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists