[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPm50aKGuxUfedpkPDpTZyGiLC1YFn3Wz+=5axzyBA9o2rd0XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 19:49:50 +0800
From: Hao Peng <flyingpenghao@...il.com>
To: pbonzini@...hat.com
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] kvm: x86: Keep the lock order consistent
From: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
Acquire SRCU before taking the gpc spinlock in wait_pending_event() so as
to be consistent with all other functions that acquire both locks. It's
not illegal to acquire SRCU inside a spinlock, nor is there deadlock
potential, but in general it's preferable to order locks from least
restrictive to most restrictive, e.g. if wait_pending_event() needed to
sleep for whatever reason, it could do so while holding SRCU, but would
need to drop the spinlock.
Thanks Sean Christopherson for the comment.
Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/xen.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c b/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
index 280cb5dc7341..fa6e54b13afb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
@@ -965,8 +965,8 @@ static bool wait_pending_event(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, int nr_ports,
bool ret = true;
int idx, i;
- read_lock_irqsave(&gpc->lock, flags);
idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
+ read_lock_irqsave(&gpc->lock, flags);
if (!kvm_gfn_to_pfn_cache_check(kvm, gpc, gpc->gpa, PAGE_SIZE))
goto out_rcu;
@@ -987,9 +987,8 @@ static bool wait_pending_event(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, int nr_ports,
}
out_rcu:
- srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
read_unlock_irqrestore(&gpc->lock, flags);
-
+ srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
return ret;
}
--
2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists