Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] KVM: Avoid synchronize_srcu() in kvm_io_bus_register_dev()

[Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@amazon.com>]

On 17/02/2026 19:07, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
>> On 13/02/2026 23:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
>>>> I am not aware of way to make it fast for both use cases and would be more
>>>> than happy to hear about possible solutions.
>>>
>>> What if we key off of vCPUS being created?  The motivation for Keir's change was
>>> to avoid stalling during VM boot, i.e. *after* initial VM creation.
>>
>> It doesn't work as is on x86 because the delay we're seeing occurs after the
>> created_cpus gets incremented
> 
> I don't follow, the suggestion was to key off created_vcpus in
> kvm_io_bus_register_dev(), not in kvm_swap_active_memslots().  I can totally
> imagine the patch not working, but the ordering in kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu()
> should be largely irrelevant.

Yes, you're right, it's irrelevant.  I had made the change in 
kvm_io_bus_register_dev() like proposed, but have no idea how I couldn't 
see the effect.  I retested it now and it's obvious that it works on 
x86.  Sorry for the confusion.

> 
> Probably a moot point though.

Yes, this will not solve the problem on ARM.

> 
>> so it doesn't allow to differentiate the two
>> cases (below is kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu):
>>
>>        kvm->created_vcpus++; // <===== incremented here
>>        mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>>
>>        vcpu = kmem_cache_zalloc(kvm_vcpu_cache, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>>        if (!vcpu) {
>>                r = -ENOMEM;
>>                goto vcpu_decrement;
>>        }
>>
>>        BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct kvm_run) > PAGE_SIZE);
>>        page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO);
>>        if (!page) {
>>                r = -ENOMEM;
>>                goto vcpu_free;
>>        }
>>        vcpu->run = page_address(page);
>>
>>        kvm_vcpu_init(vcpu, kvm, id);
>>
>>        r = kvm_arch_vcpu_create(vcpu); // <===== the delay is here
>>
>>
>> firecracker   583 [001]   151.297145: probe:synchronize_srcu_expedited:
>> (ffffffff813e5cf0)
>>      ffffffff813e5cf1 synchronize_srcu_expedited+0x1 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff81234986 kvm_swap_active_memslots+0x136 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff81236cdd kvm_set_memslot+0x1cd ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff81237518 kvm_set_memory_region.part.0+0x478 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff81264dbc __x86_set_memory_region+0xec ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8127e2dc kvm_alloc_apic_access_page+0x5c ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff812b9ed3 vmx_vcpu_create+0x193 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8126788a kvm_arch_vcpu_create+0x1da ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8123c54c kvm_vm_ioctl+0x5fc ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8167b331 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x91 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8251a89c do_syscall_64+0x4c ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>      ffffffff8100012b entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76 ([kernel.kallsyms])
>>                6512de ioctl+0x32 (/mnt/host/firecracker)
>>                 d99a7 std::rt::lang_start+0x37 (/mnt/host/firecracker)
>>
>> Also, given that it stumbles after the KVM_CREATE_VCPU on ARM (in
>> KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION), it doesn't look like a universal solution.
> 
> Hmm.  Under the hood, __synchronize_srcu() itself uses __call_srcu, so I _think_
> the only practical difference (aside from waiting, obviously) between call_srcu()
> and synchronize_srcu_expedited() with respect to "transferring" grace period
> latency is that using call_srcu() could start a normal, non-expedited grace period.
> 
> IIUC, SRCU has best-effort logic to shift in-flight non-expedited grace periods
> to expedited mode, but if the normal grace period has already started the timer
> for the delayed invocation of process_srcu(), then SRCU will still wait for one
> jiffie, i.e. won't immediately queue the work.
> 
> I have no idea if this is sane and/or acceptable, but before looping in Paul and
> others, can you try this to see if it helps?

That's exactly what I tried myself before and it didn't help, probably 
for the reason you mentioned above (a normal GP being already started).

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index 344ad51c8f6c..30437dc8d818 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) __releases(ssp);
> 
>   void call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct rcu_head *head,
>                  void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
> +void call_srcu_expedited(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> +                        rcu_callback_t func);
>   void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
>   void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index ea3f128de06f..03333b079092 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -1493,6 +1493,13 @@ void call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_srcu);
> 
> +void call_srcu_expedited(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> +                        rcu_callback_t func)
> +{
> +       __call_srcu(ssp, rhp, func, rcu_gp_is_normal());
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_srcu_expedited);
> +
>   /*
>    * Helper function for synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
>    */
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 737b74b15bb5..26215f98c98f 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -6036,7 +6036,7 @@ int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
>          memcpy(new_bus->range + i + 1, bus->range + i,
>                  (bus->dev_count - i) * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range));
>          rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->buses[bus_idx], new_bus);
> -       call_srcu(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, __free_bus);
> +       call_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, __free_bus);
> 
>          return 0;
>   }