From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:35:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YktWfUbjz27OdbUA@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220404194605.1569855-1-pgonda@google.com>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> svm_vm_migrate_from() uses sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration() to lock all
> source and target vcpu->locks. Mark the nested subclasses to avoid false
> positives from lockdep.
>
> Fixes: b56639318bb2b ("KVM: SEV: Add support for SEV intra host migration")
> Reported-by: John Sperbeck<jsperbeck@google.com>
> Suggested-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>
> Tested by running sev_migrate_tests with lockdep enabled. Before we see
> a warning from sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(). After we get no warnings.
>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> index 75fa6dd268f0..8f77421c1c4b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> @@ -1591,15 +1591,16 @@ static void sev_unlock_two_vms(struct kvm *dst_kvm, struct kvm *src_kvm)
> atomic_set_release(&src_sev->migration_in_progress, 0);
> }
>
> -
> -static int sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(struct kvm *kvm)
> +static int sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int *subclass)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> unsigned long i, j;
>
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (mutex_lock_killable(&vcpu->mutex))
> + if (mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, *subclass))
> goto out_unlock;
> +
> + ++(*subclass);
This is rather gross, and I'm guessing it adds extra work for the non-lockdep
case, assuming the compiler isn't so clever that it can figure out that the result
is never used. Not that this is a hot path...
Does each lock actually need a separate subclass? If so, why don't the other
paths that lock all vCPUs complain?
If differentiating the two VMs is sufficient, then we can pass in SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING
for the second round of locks. If a per-vCPU subclass is required, we can use the
vCPU index and assign evens to one and odds to the other, e.g. this should work and
compiles to a nop when LOCKDEP is disabled (compile tested only). It's still gross,
but we could pretty it up, e.g. add defines for the 0/1 param.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
index 75fa6dd268f0..9be35902b809 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
@@ -1591,14 +1591,13 @@ static void sev_unlock_two_vms(struct kvm *dst_kvm, struct kvm *src_kvm)
atomic_set_release(&src_sev->migration_in_progress, 0);
}
-
-static int sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(struct kvm *kvm)
+static int sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(struct kvm *kvm, int mod)
{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
unsigned long i, j;
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
- if (mutex_lock_killable(&vcpu->mutex))
+ if (mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, i * 2 + mod))
goto out_unlock;
}
@@ -1745,10 +1744,10 @@ int sev_vm_move_enc_context_from(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int source_fd)
charged = true;
}
- ret = sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(kvm);
+ ret = sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(kvm, 0);
if (ret)
goto out_dst_cgroup;
- ret = sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(source_kvm);
+ ret = sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration(source_kvm, 1);
if (ret)
goto out_dst_vcpu;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-04 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-04 19:46 [PATCH] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock Peter Gonda
2022-04-04 20:35 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-04-04 21:51 ` Peter Gonda
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=YktWfUbjz27OdbUA@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=jsperbeck@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pgonda@google.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).