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?
next prev parent 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