[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <432666f36add6647283631770f1b140656c67c62.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:51:39 +0200
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: 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>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.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 27/43] KVM: VMX: Move Posted Interrupt ndst
computation out of write loop
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 16:12 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Hoist the CPU => APIC ID conversion for the Posted Interrupt descriptor
> > > out of the loop to write the descriptor, preemption is disabled so the
> > > CPU won't change, and if the APIC ID changes KVM has bigger problems.
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Is preemption always disabled in vmx_vcpu_pi_load? vmx_vcpu_pi_load is called
> > from vmx_vcpu_load, which is called indirectly from vcpu_load which is called
> > from many ioctls, which userspace does. In these places I don't think that
> > preemption is disabled.
>
> Preemption is disabled in vcpu_load() by the get_cpu(). The "cpu" param that's
> passed around the vcpu_load() stack is also why I think it's ok to _not_ assert
> that preemption is disabled in vmx_vcpu_pi_load(); if preemption is enabled,
> "cpu" is unstable and thus the entire "load" operation is busted.
Yes, I even knew about the get_cpu() behavier which indeed has to disable preemption.
But I didn't notice call to it, when I wrote this mail! Later I did notice it but it was
too late. Sometimes sending all the review mails at once at the end does make sense after all,
I guess.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
>
> #define get_cpu() ({ preempt_disable(); __smp_processor_id(); })
> #define put_cpu() preempt_enable()
>
>
> void vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> int cpu = get_cpu();
>
> __this_cpu_write(kvm_running_vcpu, vcpu);
> preempt_notifier_register(&vcpu->preempt_notifier);
> kvm_arch_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
> put_cpu();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vcpu_load);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists