[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABgObfZeV6D-2cEht1300xNgxYtz=mi6oX4-D8x7exittEe22Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 18:38:11 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: Generic changes for 6.20
On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 5:10 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> - Document that vcpu->mutex is take outside of kvm->slots_lock, which is all
> kinds of unintuitive, but is unfortunately the existing behavior for
> multiple architectures, and in a weird way actually makes sense.
I disagree that it is "arguably wrong" how you put it in the commit
message. vcpu->mutex is really a "don't worry about multiple ioctls at
the same time" mutex that tries to stay out of the way. It only
becomes unintuitive in special cases like
tdx_acquire_vm_state_locks().
By itself this would not be a reason to resend, but while at it you
could mention that vcpu->mutex is taken outside kvm->slots_arch_lock?
Paolo
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sean Christopherson (2):
> KVM: Remove subtle "struct kvm_stats_desc" pseudo-overlay
> Documentation: KVM: Formalizing taking vcpu->mutex *outside* of kvm->slots_lock
>
> Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst | 2 +
> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 4 +-
> arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c | 2 +-
> arch/loongarch/kvm/vm.c | 2 +-
> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 4 +-
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c | 4 +-
> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 4 +-
> arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c | 2 +-
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 +-
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 83 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 8 ++++
> virt/kvm/binary_stats.c | 2 +-
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 20 ++++-----
> 15 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists