public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@huawei.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>,
	Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com>,
	Shusen Li <lishusen2@huawei.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: KVM: use mutex_trylock_nest_lock when locking all vCPUs
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 13:15:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250501111552.GO4198@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <864iy4ivro.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:24:11AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> nit: in keeping with the existing arm64 patches, please write the
> subject as "KVM: arm64: Use ..."
> 
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 21:30:10 +0100,
> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index 68fec8c95fee..d31f42a71bdc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -1914,49 +1914,6 @@ int kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int ioctl, unsigned long arg)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* unlocks vcpus from @vcpu_lock_idx and smaller */
> > -static void unlock_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_lock_idx)
> > -{
> > -	struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > -
> > -	for (; vcpu_lock_idx >= 0; vcpu_lock_idx--) {
> > -		tmp_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, vcpu_lock_idx);
> > -		mutex_unlock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex);
> > -	}
> > -}
> > -
> > -void unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > -{
> > -	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> 
> Note this assertion...
> 
> > -
> > -	unlock_vcpus(kvm, atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) - 1);
> > -}
> > -
> > -/* Returns true if all vcpus were locked, false otherwise */
> > -bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > -{
> > -	struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > -	unsigned long c;
> > -
> > -	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> 
> and this one...
> 
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Any time a vcpu is in an ioctl (including running), the
> > -	 * core KVM code tries to grab the vcpu->mutex.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * By grabbing the vcpu->mutex of all VCPUs we ensure that no
> > -	 * other VCPUs can fiddle with the state while we access it.
> > -	 */
> > -	kvm_for_each_vcpu(c, tmp_vcpu, kvm) {
> > -		if (!mutex_trylock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex)) {
> > -			unlock_vcpus(kvm, c - 1);
> > -			return false;
> > -		}
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	return true;
> > -}
> > -
> >  static unsigned long nvhe_percpu_size(void)
> >  {
> >  	return (unsigned long)CHOOSE_NVHE_SYM(__per_cpu_end) -
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index 69782df3617f..834f08dfa24c 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -1368,6 +1368,40 @@ static int kvm_vm_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Try to lock all of the VM's vCPUs.
> > + * Assumes that the kvm->lock is held.
> 
> Assuming is not enough. These assertions have caught a number of bugs,
> and I'm not prepared to drop them.
> 
> > + */
> > +int kvm_trylock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > +	unsigned long i, j;
> > +
> > +	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
> > +		if (!mutex_trylock_nest_lock(&vcpu->mutex, &kvm->lock))

This one includes an assertion that kvm->lock is actually held.

That said, I'm not at all sure what the purpose of all this trylock
stuff is here.

Can someone explain? Last time I asked someone said something about
multiple VMs, but I don't know enough about kvm to know what that means.

Are those vcpu->mutex another class for other VMs? Or what gives?

  reply	other threads:[~2025-05-01 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-30 20:30 [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: lockdep improvements Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-30 20:30 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] locking/mutex: implement mutex_trylock_nested Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-30 20:30 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: KVM: use mutex_trylock_nest_lock when locking all vCPUs Maxim Levitsky
2025-05-01  8:24   ` Marc Zyngier
2025-05-01 11:15     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-05-01 12:44       ` Marc Zyngier
2025-05-01 13:41         ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-01 13:55           ` Marc Zyngier
2025-05-02 20:58     ` Sean Christopherson
2025-04-30 20:30 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] RISC-V: KVM: switch to kvm_trylock/unlock_all_vcpus Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-30 20:30 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] locking/mutex: implement mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-30 20:30 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] x86: KVM: SEV: implement kvm_lock_all_vcpus and use it Maxim Levitsky
2025-05-02 20:57   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-03 10:08     ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20250501111552.GO4198@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
    --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jiangkunkun@huawei.com \
    --cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr \
    --cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lishusen2@huawei.com \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=sebott@redhat.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox