From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: keir@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.5] x86/VPMU: Clear last_vcpu when destroying VPMU
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:15:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <548F172A.6010508@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <548EC102020000780004F810@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 12/15/2014 05:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.12.14 at 22:20, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
>> @@ -247,10 +247,32 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void vpmu_clear_last(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct vcpu *v = (struct vcpu *)arg;
> Please drop this pointless cast, or perhaps the entire variable, as ...
>
>> +
>> + if ( this_cpu(last_vcpu) == v )
> ... you don't really need it to be of "struct vcpu *" type - "void *"
> is quite fine for a comparison.
>
>> + this_cpu(last_vcpu) = NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> void vpmu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>> {
>> struct vpmu_struct *vpmu = vcpu_vpmu(v);
>>
>> + if ( vpmu_is_set(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_ALLOCATED) )
>> + {
>> + /* Need to clear last_vcpu in case it points to v */
>> + if ( vpmu->last_pcpu != smp_processor_id() )
>> + on_selected_cpus(cpumask_of(vpmu->last_pcpu),
>> + vpmu_clear_last, (void *)v, 1);
> The cast here is pointless too. But considering your subsequent
> reply this code may go away altogether anyway; if it doesn't,
> explaining (in the commit message) why you need to use an IPI
> here would seem necessary.
If I do simply
if (per_cpu(last_vcpu, vpmu->last_pcpu) == v)
per_cpu(last_vcpu, vpmu->last_pcpu) = NULL
then there is a (rather theoretical) possibility that between the test
and subsequent clearing the remote cpu (i.e. vpmu->last_pcpu) will do
load_vpmu() and then save_vpmu() for another VCPU. The former will clear
last_vcpu and the latter will set last_vcpu to something else. And then
the destroy_vpmu() will set it again to NULL, which is bad.
Doing it in in IPI will guarantee that nothing can happen between test
and setting it to NULL.
Again, this very much theoretical, but that's why I have it. (BTW, doing
this via IPI also preserves assumption that last_vcpu is always updated
on local CPU.)
My changes for next version would make the need to do the IPIs less
frequent. But if last_cpu needs to be cleared it would still be via IPI.
-boris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-15 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-12 21:20 [PATCH for 4.5] x86/VPMU: Clear last_vcpu when destroying VPMU Boris Ostrovsky
2014-12-13 19:08 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-12-13 20:51 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2014-12-15 10:07 ` Jan Beulich
2014-12-15 17:15 ` Boris Ostrovsky [this message]
2014-12-16 8:07 ` Jan Beulich
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=548F172A.6010508@oracle.com \
--to=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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.