On Tuesday 20 April 2010 23:54:01 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > The assigned device interrupt work handler calls kvm_set_irq, which > can sleep, for example, waiting for the ioapic mutex, from irq disabled > section. > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15725 > > Fix by dropping assigned_dev_lock (and re-enabling interrupts) > before invoking kvm_set_irq for the KVM_DEV_IRQ_HOST_MSIX case. Other > cases do not require the lock or interrupts disabled (a new work > instance will be queued in case of concurrent interrupt).
Looks fine, but depends on the new work would be queued sounds a little tricky... How about a local_irq_disable() at the beginning? It can ensure no concurrent interrupts would happen as well I think. > > KVM-Stable-Tag. > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c > index 47ca447..7ac7bbe 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c > @@ -64,24 +64,33 @@ static void > kvm_assigned_dev_interrupt_work_handler(struct work_struct *work) > interrupt_work); > kvm = assigned_dev->kvm; > > - spin_lock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > if (assigned_dev->irq_requested_type & KVM_DEV_IRQ_HOST_MSIX) { > struct kvm_guest_msix_entry *guest_entries = > assigned_dev->guest_msix_entries; irq_requested_type and guest_msix_entries should also protected by the lock. So how about another spin_lock()/unlock() pair wraps the second kvm_set_irq()? > + > + spin_lock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > for (i = 0; i < assigned_dev->entries_nr; i++) { > if (!(guest_entries[i].flags & > KVM_ASSIGNED_MSIX_PENDING)) > continue; > guest_entries[i].flags &= ~KVM_ASSIGNED_MSIX_PENDING; > + /* > + * If kvm_assigned_dev_intr sets pending for an > + * entry smaller than this work instance is > + * currently processing, a new work instance > + * will be queued. > + */ > + spin_unlock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > kvm_set_irq(assigned_dev->kvm, > assigned_dev->irq_source_id, > guest_entries[i].vector, 1); > + spin_lock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > } > + spin_unlock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > } else > kvm_set_irq(assigned_dev->kvm, assigned_dev->irq_source_id, > assigned_dev->guest_irq, 1); Or could we make kvm_set_irq() atomic? Though the code path is a little long for spinlock. > > - spin_unlock_irq(&assigned_dev->assigned_dev_lock); > } > > static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_intr(int irq, void *dev_id) -- regards Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
