[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250410081640.GX9833@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 10:16:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: x86: move
sev_lock/unlock_vcpus_for_migration to kvm_main.c
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 09:41:34PM -0400, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 69782df3617f..71c0d8c35b4b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -1368,6 +1368,77 @@ static int kvm_vm_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +
> +/*
> + * Lock all VM vCPUs.
> + * Can be used nested (to lock vCPUS of two VMs for example)
> + */
> +int kvm_lock_all_vcpus_nested(struct kvm *kvm, bool trylock, unsigned int role)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + unsigned long i, j;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> +
> + if (trylock && !mutex_trylock_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role))
> + goto out_unlock;
> + else if (!trylock && mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role))
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> + if (!i)
> + /*
> + * Reset the role to one that avoids colliding with
> + * the role used for the first vcpu mutex.
> + */
> + role = MAX_LOCK_DEPTH - 1;
> + else
> + mutex_release(&vcpu->mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> +#endif
> + }
This code is all sorts of terrible.
Per the lockdep_assert_held() above, you serialize all these locks by
holding that lock, this means you can be using the _nest_lock()
annotation.
Also, the original code didn't have this trylock nonsense, and the
Changelog doesn't mention this -- in fact the Changelog claims no
change, which is patently false.
Anyway, please write like:
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
if (mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock(&vcpu->mutex, &kvm->lock))
goto unlock;
}
return 0;
unlock:
kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
if (j == i)
break;
mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
}
return -EINTR;
And yes, you'll have to add mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock(), but that
should be trivial.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists