[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZB4uoe9WBzhG9ddU@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:13:37 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: fix lockdep warning on posted intr wakeup
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> The lock ordering after this patch are:
> - &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock -->
> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock_out, cpu)
> - &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock_in, cpu) -->
> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock_out, cpu)
> - &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock_in, cpu) --> &p->pi_lock
>
> Currently, &rq->__lock is not held in "path sched_in".
> However, if in future "path sched_in" takes &p->pi_lock or &rq->__lock,
> lockdep is able to detect and warn in that case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
> [sean: path sched_out and path irq does not race, path sched_in does not
> take &rq->__lock]
But there's no actual deadlock, right? I have zero interest in fixing a lockdep
false positive by making functional changes to KVM. I am definitely open to making
changes to somehow let lockdep know what's going on, but complicating KVM's actual
functionality is too much.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists