public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Store LPIs in an xarray
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:24:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86wmqz2gm5.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6a4587c-1db1-d477-5e6c-93dd603a11ec@linux.dev>

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:30:24 +0000,
Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> On 2024/2/17 02:41, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > Using a linked-list for LPIs is less than ideal as it of course requires
> > iterative searches to find a particular entry. An xarray is a better
> > data structure for this use case, as it provides faster searches and can
> > still handle a potentially sparse range of INTID allocations.
> > 
> > Start by storing LPIs in an xarray, punting usage of the xarray to a
> > subsequent change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
> 
> [..]
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > index db2a95762b1b..c126014f8395 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ void __vgic_put_lpi_locked(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq)
> >  		return;
> >   	list_del(&irq->lpi_list);
> > +	xa_erase(&dist->lpi_xa, irq->intid);
> 
> We can get here *after* grabbing the vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock (e.g.,
> vgic_flush_pending_lpis()/vgic_put_irq()).  And as according to vGIC's
> "Locking order", we should disable interrupts before taking the xa_lock
> in xa_erase() and we would otherwise see bad things like deadlock..
> 
> It's not a problem before patch #10, where we drop the lpi_list_lock and
> start taking the xa_lock with interrupts enabled.  Consider switching to
> use xa_erase_irq() instead?

But does it actually work? xa_erase_irq() uses spin_lock_irq(),
followed by spin_unlock_irq(). So if we were already in interrupt
context, we would end-up reenabling interrupts. At least, this should
be the irqsave version.

The question is whether we manipulate LPIs (in the get/put sense) on
the back of an interrupt handler (like we do for the timer). It isn't
obvious to me that it is the case, but I haven't spent much time
staring at this code recently.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-20 17:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-16 18:41 [PATCH v3 00/10] KVM: arm64: Avoid serializing LPI get() / put() Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Store LPIs in an xarray Oliver Upton
2024-02-20 16:30   ` Zenghui Yu
2024-02-20 17:15     ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-21  5:11       ` Zenghui Yu
2024-02-21  5:13         ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-20 17:24     ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-02-20 17:43       ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-20 17:53         ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-20 17:57           ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Use xarray to find LPI in vgic_get_lpi() Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Iterate the xarray to find pending LPIs Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] KVM: arm64: vgic-its: Walk the LPI xarray in vgic_copy_lpi_list() Oliver Upton
2024-02-18  8:46   ` Zenghui Yu
2024-02-18 10:28     ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-18 18:05       ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Get rid of the LPI linked-list Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Use atomics to count LPIs Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 07/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Free LPI vgic_irq structs in an RCU-safe manner Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 08/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Rely on RCU protection in vgic_get_lpi() Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Ensure the irq refcount is nonzero when taking a ref Oliver Upton
2024-02-16 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] KVM: arm64: vgic: Don't acquire the lpi_list_lock in vgic_put_irq() Oliver Upton

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=86wmqz2gm5.wl-maz@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    --cc=zenghui.yu@linux.dev \
    /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