[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <592a315a8932b03f601e4c22d5846e97bd4a1103.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:15:26 +0200
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 39/43] KVM: VMX: Don't do full kick when triggering
posted interrupt "fails"
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 00:09 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/10/21 18:04, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request() pairs with the smp_mb_*()
> > > > + * after setting vcpu->mode in vcpu_enter_guest(), thus the vCPU
> > > > + * is guaranteed to see the event request if triggering a posted
> > > > + * interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE.
> > >
> > > What this smp_wmb() pair with, is the smp_mb__after_atomic in
> > > kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu).
> >
> > I don't think that's correct. There is no kvm_check_request() in the relevant path.
> > kvm_vcpu_exit_request() uses kvm_request_pending(), which is just a READ_ONCE()
> > without a barrier.
>
> Ok, we are talking about two different set of barriers. This is mine:
>
> - smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request() pairs with the smp_mb__after_atomic() in
> kvm_check_request(); it ensures that everything before the request
> (in this case, pi_pending = true) is seen by inject_pending_event.
>
> - pi_test_and_set_on() orders the write to ON after the write to PIR,
> pairing with vmx_sync_pir_to_irr and ensuring that the bit in the PIR is
> seen.
>
> And this is yours:
>
> - pi_test_and_set_on() _also_ orders the write to ON before the read of
> vcpu->mode, pairing with vcpu_enter_guest()
>
> - kvm_make_request() however does _not_ order the write to
> vcpu->requests before the read of vcpu->mode, even though it's needed.
> Usually that's handled by kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(), but in this case
> vcpu->mode is read in kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt.
Yes indeed, kvm_make_request() writes the vcpu->requests after the memory barrier,
and then there is no barrier until reading of vcpu->mode in kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt.
>
> So vmx_deliver_nested_posted_interrupt() is missing a smp_mb__after_atomic().
> It's documentation only for x86, but still easily done in v3.
>
> Paolo
>
I used this patch as a justification to read Paolo's excellent LWN series of articles on memory barriers,
to refresh my knowledge of the memory barriers and understand the above analysis better.
https://lwn.net/Articles/844224/
I agree with the above, but this is something that is so easy to make a mistake
that I can't be 100% sure.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Powered by blists - more mailing lists