[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pmov97fk.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:55:11 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com,
alexandru.elisei@....com, anup.patel@....com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, bp@...en8.de,
catalin.marinas@....com, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, james.morse@....com,
jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com,
palmer@...belt.com, paulmck@...nel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] kvm: add exit_to_guest_mode() and enter_from_guest_mode()
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:01:30 +0000,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 05:54:59PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:35:35 +0000,
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
[...]
> > > +/*
> > > + * Enter guest context and enter an RCU extended quiescent state.
> > > + *
> > > + * This should be the last thing called before entering the guest, and must be
> > > + * called after any potential use of RCU (including any potentially
> > > + * instrumented code).
> >
> > nit: "the last thing called" is terribly ambiguous. Any architecture
> > obviously calls a ****load of stuff after this point. Should this be
> > 'the last thing involving RCU' instead?
>
> I agree this is unclear and I struggled to fing good wording for this. Is the
> following any better?
>
> /*
> * Enter guest context and enter an RCU extended quiescent state.
> *
> * Between guest_context_enter_irqoff() and guest_context_exit_irqoff() it is
> * unsafe to use any code which may directly or indirectly use RCU, tracing
> * (including IRQ flag tracing), or lockdep. All code in this period must be
> * non-instrumentable.
> */
>
> If that's good I can add similar to guest_context_exit_irqoff().
Yes, that's much clearer, thanks.
>
> [...]
>
> > > +/**
> > > + * exit_to_guest_mode - Fixup state when exiting to guest mode
> > > + *
> > > + * This is analagous to exit_to_user_mode(), and ensures we perform the
> > > + * following in order:
> > > + *
> > > + * 1) Trace interrupts on state
> > > + * 2) Invoke context tracking if enabled to adjust RCU state
> > > + * 3) Tell lockdep that interrupts are enabled
> >
> > nit: or rather, are about to be enabled? Certainly on arm64, the
> > enable happens much later, right at the point where we enter the guest
> > for real.
>
> True; I'd cribbed the wording from the comment block above exit_to_user_mode(),
> but I stripped the context that made that clear. I'll make that:
>
> /**
> * exit_to_guest_mode - Fixup state when exiting to guest mode
> *
> * Entry to a guest will enable interrupts, but the kernel state is
> * interrupts disabled when this is invoked. Also tell RCU about it.
> *
> * 1) Trace interrupts on state
> * 2) Invoke context tracking if enabled to adjust RCU state
> * 3) Tell lockdep that interrupts are enabled
> *
> * Invoked from architecture specific code before entering a guest.
> * Must be called with interrupts disabled and the caller must be
> * non-instrumentable.
> * The caller has to invoke guest_timing_enter_irqoff() before this.
> *
> * Note: this is analagous to exit_to_user_mode().
nit: analogous
> */
>
> ... with likewise for enter_from_guest_mode(), if that's clear enough?
Yes, that's great.
Thanks again,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists