From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f74.google.com (mail-pj1-f74.google.com [209.85.216.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3DAB201000 for ; Fri, 2 May 2025 20:58:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.74 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746219535; cv=none; b=TzlvL0ROQlqhOYCMqg9KW1Zg/2dqI0j1UN2W6zbdwgADsGTAkDGo5LIy1MMRcxdDBk5gjYaCcAGLsUiUNXncF7zu5erEUsOs3LZaTDJJafI4mUAEzMiEpQrZidttCXIJq1mxiMzPM0wxO2B70XiZ06pXJvwQrW2APGmHrzDXXUM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746219535; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FMuOYXuNARVPGbLdZKzdZACnsi/D3uRXcBJ+KxMLSJw=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=anLfFWtO8hDzAxLvfNrLg2JCWqbeBFTVjkqzYkmjh/ZDPADKjgkeQMAh53RhdU05H2V9f9WtgQwHmI3RUqQJPruJ1JDX/enNB5CVfNxo4CRGAxEkdrn7Um3QkVU7cINHHoYY0BbH8zr2WO/3hOUjYzm9C48OnhSJ1h9oNxCdJOA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=pTQjjmxy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.74 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="pTQjjmxy" Received: by mail-pj1-f74.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-30a204efeaeso1902259a91.0 for ; Fri, 02 May 2025 13:58:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1746219533; x=1746824333; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=z141FLEwqm2f5UKeV3GY2SvtY7oSxEMFO78Y0lhO4Mo=; b=pTQjjmxy/IU032SAxUrMOW1IreItVm/mUF86psWfzTZH0EbG6KXIcu3+6EQGdtvcJ7 lRDg1D2UbAUk0sew/FxZ+x+GeEAmOrltkoHqa8UU5PPVbHjCqE1jnphD6xYcDlt0vTqF i8UOI8lIsU1ou9tHbUTUOV5113NqMZgxVYD6a+inZMirTqU0LOqCMHbdZyShBcV60BMo OFVwKhHX1Gqyvao5i2FIC22Cn6PEcR/0QkNspHTD7MWrTNfg6Gk40rqELrve7RD7qHvN E5yDU7Ou8vmbRnDuE2VWWkngOv536F9vrmWSnfaOXl+3FzjtJmSNFWwT/ZAqr1vzjKQb atRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1746219533; x=1746824333; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=z141FLEwqm2f5UKeV3GY2SvtY7oSxEMFO78Y0lhO4Mo=; b=cblZWfMPKwuuxgyI48zx9xb1t9Af9ZNzxJIaQAeb1Q6QlItpFI7nQL4h9XEYNEoIL2 RUaVJvXNsHeGPIdM4H/PpSKScNbQIBMmQNdicIFHMRWruNZkJeoHuOctyl3AXXzxgjQ/ LCQ97qENHeMO3DWyoegKCe7ytmoAYy1OTDVeIeE0H5eblDVO0ec1AyQ1Q+52Xhjg6vl6 597slUS7fPOwvSR9zgAQj3lQTpgQExCSjpq548SYJ8LViMpsKJtlJNCU/2rzDneTWH1X CzEL8eg/xDGOP+TJNFbniSLZzlw09T8o5vO/soEGAI4YuZUG6cvxuH0koFmiAhq9ZPnQ pi3w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV0niK/Gjn9x6+/+xvmmsuskUZrJVzt88ZOqk9AjVXufbin0iF3iWP+qxS4VZ4EgcpqRa9KpKY=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwY40D7UbmJjLsAA9rJIVY2M0CfGRTBqYiqcLdBd6eqFXQeVjwC PpkUyChM4oVLMBp0snmI08EQ5kTriuB5eh1km86uwfE2sfIWVY7SXcjSHaNCbCmE8LUOtuhXcbg Dgw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGm3fjnbZdZ0P5dTXEIDYUNeozyMh591wQHnGgOaKhf2rgPLaUDWxwxyDC2IuE6wOX5aAwhTk5qwaY= X-Received: from pjff8.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:5628:b0:2ff:8471:8e53]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:90b:1f8c:b0:305:5f32:d9f0 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-30a4e5c5e9dmr6320303a91.19.1746219533227; Fri, 02 May 2025 13:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 13:58:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <864iy4ivro.wl-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20250430203013.366479-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <20250430203013.366479-3-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <864iy4ivro.wl-maz@kernel.org> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: KVM: use mutex_trylock_nest_lock when locking all vCPUs From: Sean Christopherson To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Maxim Levitsky , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Kunkun Jiang , Waiman Long , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Bjorn Helgaas , Boqun Feng , Borislav Petkov , Albert Ou , Anup Patel , Paul Walmsley , Suzuki K Poulose , Palmer Dabbelt , Alexandre Ghiti , Alexander Potapenko , Oliver Upton , Andre Przywara , x86@kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Thomas Gleixner , kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Atish Patra , Ingo Molnar , Jing Zhang , "H. Peter Anvin" , Dave Hansen , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Will Deacon , Keisuke Nishimura , Sebastian Ott , Peter Zijlstra , Shusen Li , Paolo Bonzini , Randy Dunlap , Zenghui Yu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, May 01, 2025, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > 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)) > > + goto out_unlock; > > + return 0; > > + > > +out_unlock: > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) { > > + if (i == j) > > + break; > > + mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex); > > + } > > + return -EINTR; > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_trylock_all_vcpus); > > + > > +void kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm) > > +{ > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > + unsigned long i; > > + > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) > > + mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex); > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_unlock_all_vcpus); > > I don't mind you not including the assertions in these helpers, I do :-) I see no reason not to add assertions here, if locking all vCPUs is a hot path, we've probably got bigger problems.