From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: Fix race in apic->pending_events processing
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:10:54 +0300
Message-ID: <20130530131054.GB5495@redhat.com>
References: <20130528150057.GA6891@redhat.com>
 <51A4DC63.2040906@redhat.com>
 <20130530012048.GB20766@redhat.com>
 <51A6E671.8070408@redhat.com>
 <20130530060150.GA28173@redhat.com>
 <51A6F22F.2000600@redhat.com>
 <20130530070906.GA29815@redhat.com>
 <51A70021.1040809@redhat.com>
 <20130530123454.GA4845@redhat.com>
 <51A74CE1.1000700@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7208 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751430Ab3E3NK5 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 30 May 2013 09:10:57 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51A74CE1.1000700@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Then yes, we will not
> >>> > > lose the event.
> >> > 
> >> > Ok, then I'd prefer to have the cmpxchg directly in the if, as in
> >> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/110505
> >> > 
> > I still do not. Both of them are tricky, mine does not coalesce events
> > needlessly.
> 
> Agreed that both are tricky, but I don't think my patch is coalescing
> events.  If you have
> 
>     INIT    SIPI     INIT     SIPI
>                   ^                           ^
>                   INIT bit cleared here       SIPI bit checked here
> 
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

> my patch KVM sees apic_events = INIT | SIPI and deduces that the SIPI
> bit was set by the second SIPI, not by the first.  In fact the first
> SIPI was cancelled by the second INIT, and thus should not be processed
> at all.
That is called coalesced.

> 
> Instead, with your patch KVM will service all four events; strictly
> speaking it is wrong to service the first SIPI, which is why I prefer
> having the cmpxchg in the beginning.
> y
Why is it wrong?

I do not see what are you arguing about.

--
			Gleb.