[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZP9X7YvstWhS/pWn@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:09:49 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: vPMU: Use atomic bit operations for global_status
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 8:01 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > > Use atomic bit operations for pmu->global_status because it may suffer from
> > > race conditions between emulated overflow in KVM vPMU and PEBS overflow in
> > > host PMI handler.
> >
> > Only if the host PMI occurs on a different pCPU, and if that can happen don't we
> > have a much larger problem?
>
> Why on different pCPU? For vPMU, I think there is always contention
> between the vCPU thread and the host PMI handler running on the same
> pCPU, no?
A non-atomic instruction can't be interrupted by an NMI, or any other event, so
I don't see how switching to atomic operations fixes anything unless the NMI comes
in on a different pCPU.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists