From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:58:18 +0300
Message-ID: <4E1AF36A.2060605@redhat.com>
References: <1309793548-16714-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1309793548-16714-5-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <20110707105113.GA3986@amt.cnet> <4E15E7E5.6020909@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E15E7E5.6020909@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 07/07/2011 08:07 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> +static void record_steal_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> +{
>>> +    u64 delta;
>>> +
>>> +    if (!(vcpu->arch.st.msr_val&  KVM_MSR_ENABLED))
>>> +        return;
>>> +
>>> +    if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm,&vcpu->arch.st.stime,
>>> + &vcpu->arch.st.steal, sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time))))
>>> +        return;
>>
>> The guest memory page is not pinned, sleeping via
>> __copy_from_user/to_user is not allowed in vcpu_load context. Either pin
>> it or use atomic acessors.
>
>
> I do recognize the problem.
> Avi, what's your take here?
>

The easiest solution is to set a KVM_REQ bit in atomic context, and move 
the sleepy code to vcpu_enter_guest().

>>> +    case MSR_KVM_STEAL_TIME:
>>> +        vcpu->arch.st.msr_val = data;
>>> +
>>> +        if (!(data&  KVM_MSR_ENABLED)) {
>>> +            break;
>>> +        }
>>
>> On failure below this point, msr_val should be cleared of 
>> KVM_MSR_ENABLED?
> No, msr_val has to hold whatever the guest wrote into it.
> We should probably use an independent variable here to indicate that 
> we failed to activate it.

If we fail, we return a #GP to the guest (and don't write any value into 
the msr).

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.