From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: Fix race in apic->pending_events processing
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:14:42 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130602131442.GF24773@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51A871DA.7070905@redhat.com>
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:48:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/05/2013 11:18, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
> >>> vpu0: vcpu1:
> >>> set INIT
> >>> test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT)
> >>> process INIT
> >>> set INIT
> >>> set SIPI
> >>> test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_SIPI)
> >>> process SIPI
> >>>
> >>> Two INITs before SIPI are essential to trigger the bug
> >>
> >> I see now. Let's draw pending_events as well:
> >>
> >> event sent event processed pending_events
> >> INIT INIT
> >> INIT 0
> >> INIT INIT
> >> SIPI INIT|SIPI
> >> SIPI INIT
> >> INIT 0
> >>
> >> Events are reordered, there is indeed a bug if the second INIT comes at
> >> just the right time. With your patch:
> >>
> >> event sent event processed pending_events
> >> INIT INIT
> >> INIT 0
> >> INIT INIT
> >> SIPI INIT|SIPI
> >> SIPI, failed cmpxchg INIT|SIPI
> >> INIT SIPI
> >> SIPI SIPI
> >
> > This is incorrect. cmpxchg will fail only if another INIT cames after SIPI.
> > Why would it fail?
>
> You're right.
>
> Can you show what is the case in my patch where you have coalescing? I
You'ev said it in some of your emails. Quoting:
" INIT-INIT-SIPI-INIT-SIPI
your version would do many SIPIs, while mine would do just one."
> still prefer it because it is a smaller change, it keeps the "clear a
> bit before processing" idea that you find almost everywhere. Changing
> it to "clear a bit after processing" is a bigger and more surprising
> change, though both are indeed tricky.
>
There is nothing "surprising" in it for me. Really it is so subjection
that arguing about it is waste of everybody time and energy. So if we
want to continue have fun arguing about it lets move to some real patch
problems/benefits. So what I didn't like from the start about
pending_events is that it introduces two locked instruction on each
interrupt injection path, your patch makes it worse by change one of
those locked instruction to cmpxchg, while mine actually removes one.
But I think we can do even better and get rid of both of them for common
case and do only one locked inst while there are events pending, but
this is slow path so less important:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
index 9d75193..3e0e85a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1850,11 +1850,14 @@ void kvm_apic_accept_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvm_lapic *apic = vcpu->arch.apic;
unsigned int sipi_vector;
+ unsigned long pe;
- if (!kvm_vcpu_has_lapic(vcpu))
+ if (!kvm_vcpu_has_lapic(vcpu) || !apic->pending_events)
return;
- if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT, &apic->pending_events)) {
+ pe = xchg(&apic->pending_events, 0);
+
+ if (test_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT, &pe)) {
kvm_lapic_reset(vcpu);
kvm_vcpu_reset(vcpu);
if (kvm_vcpu_is_bsp(apic->vcpu))
@@ -1862,7 +1865,7 @@ void kvm_apic_accept_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
else
vcpu->arch.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED;
}
- if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_SIPI, &apic->pending_events) &&
+ if (test_bit(KVM_APIC_SIPI, &pe) &&
vcpu->arch.mp_state == KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED) {
/* evaluate pending_events before reading the vector */
smp_rmb();
--
Gleb.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-02 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-26 13:00 [PATCH RFC] KVM: Fix race in apic->pending_events processing Gleb Natapov
2013-05-28 10:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-28 12:56 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-28 13:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-28 15:00 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-28 16:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 1:20 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 5:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 6:01 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 6:31 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 7:09 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 7:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 12:34 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 12:58 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 13:10 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 13:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-30 13:35 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-30 14:15 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-31 4:36 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-31 8:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-31 9:18 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-05-31 9:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-02 13:14 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
2013-06-02 14:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-02 17:33 ` Gleb Natapov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130602131442.GF24773@redhat.com \
--to=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.