From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: Convert read-only users of vm_list to RCU
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:56:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D53E063.1040004@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D53DDD3.5020704@siemens.com>
On 02/10/2011 02:45 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is no list_move_tail_rcu().
> >>
> >> ...specifically not for this one.
> >
> > Well, we can add one if needed (and if possible).
>
> I can have a look, at least at the lower hanging fruits.
Please keep rcu->parent in the loop.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Why check kvm->deleted? it's in the process of being torn down anyway,
> >>> it doesn't matter if mmu_shrink or kvm_destroy_vm pulls the trigger.
> >>
> >> kvm_destroy_vm removes a vm from the list while mmu_shrink is running.
> >> Then mmu_shrink's list_move_tail will re-add that vm to the list tail
> >> again (unless already the removal in move_tail produces a crash).
> >
> > It's too subtle. Communication across threads with a variable needs
> > memory barriers (even though they're nops on x86) and documentation.
>
> The barriers are provided by this spin lock we acquire for testing are
> modifying deleted.
Right.
I'm not thrilled with adding ->deleted though.
> >
> > btw, not even sure if it's legal: you have a mutating call within an rcu
> > read critical section for the same object. If synchronize_rcu() were
> > called there, would it ever terminate?
>
> Why not? kvm_destroy_vm is not preventing blocking mmu_shrink to acquire
> the kvm_lock where we then find the vm deleted and release both kvm_lock
> and the rcu read "lock" afterwards.
synchronize_rcu() waits until all currently running rcu read-side
critical sections are completed. But we are in the middle of one, which
isn't going to complete until it synchronize_rcu() returns.
> >
> > (not that synchronize_rcu() is a good thing there, better do it with
> > call_rcu()).
>
> What's the benefit? The downside is a bit more complexity as you need an
> additional callback handler.
synchronize_rcu() can be very slow (its a systemwide operation), and
mmu_shrink() can be called often on a loaded system.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-10 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4D512EF7.8040409@siemens.com>
2011-02-08 11:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: Convert read-only users of vm_list to RCU Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 10:16 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 11:31 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 12:34 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 12:45 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 12:56 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2011-02-10 12:57 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 13:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 13:19 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 13:47 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 14:26 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 14:34 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-10 14:47 ` Avi Kivity
2011-02-10 14:55 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-02-15 12:32 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2011-02-15 14:08 ` Jan Kiszka
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=4D53E063.1040004@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=zamsden@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox