On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:38:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 27/06/2013 13:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 06:34:03PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >> In commit e935b8372cf8 ("KVM: Convert kvm_lock to raw_spinlock"),
> > I am copying Jan, the author of the patch. Commit message says:
> > "Code under this lock requires non-preemptibility", but which code
> > exactly is this? Is this still true?
>
> hardware_enable_nolock/hardware_disable_nolock does.
>
I suspected this will be the answer and prepared another question :)
>From a glance kvm_lock is used to protect those just to avoid creating
separate lock, so why not create raw one to protect them and change
kvm_lock to non raw again. Admittedly I haven't looked too close into
this yet.
> Paolo
>
> >> the kvm_lock was made a raw lock. However, the kvm mmu_shrink()
> >> function tries to grab the (non-raw) mmu_lock within the scope of
> >> the raw locked kvm_lock being held. This leads to the following:
> >>
> >> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:659
> >> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 55, name: kswapd0
> >> Preemption disabled at:[<ffffffffa0376eac>] mmu_shrink+0x5c/0x1b0 [kvm]
> >>
> >> Pid: 55, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 3.4.34_preempt-rt
> >> Call Trace:
> >> [<ffffffff8106f2ad>] __might_sleep+0xfd/0x160
> >> [<ffffffff817d8d64>] rt_spin_lock+0x24/0x50
> >> [<ffffffffa0376f3c>] mmu_shrink+0xec/0x1b0 [kvm]
> >> [<ffffffff8111455d>] shrink_slab+0x17d/0x3a0
> >> [<ffffffff81151f00>] ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x130/0x260
> >> [<ffffffff8111824a>] balance_pgdat+0x54a/0x730
> >> [<ffffffff8111fe47>] ? set_pgdat_percpu_threshold+0xa7/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff811185bf>] kswapd+0x18f/0x490
> >> [<ffffffff81070961>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
> >> [<ffffffff81061970>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x50/0x50
> >> [<ffffffff81118430>] ? balance_pgdat+0x730/0x730
> >> [<ffffffff81060d2b>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
> >> [<ffffffff8106e122>] ? finish_task_switch+0x52/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff817e1e94>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> >> [<ffffffff81060c50>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x
> >>
> >> Since we only use the lock for protecting the vm_list, once we've
> >> found the instance we want, we can shuffle it to the end of the
> >> list and then drop the kvm_lock before taking the mmu_lock. We
> >> can do this because after the mmu operations are completed, we
> >> break -- i.e. we don't continue list processing, so it doesn't
> >> matter if the list changed around us.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> [Note1: do double check that this solution makes sense for the
> >> mainline kernel; consider this an RFC patch that does want a
> >> review from people in the know.]
> >>
> >> [Note2: you'll need to be running a preempt-rt kernel to actually
> >> see this. Also note that the above patch is against linux-next.
> >> Alternate solutions welcome ; this seemed to me the obvious fix.]
> >>
> >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index 748e0d8..db93a70 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -4322,6 +4322,7 @@ mmu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct
> >> shrink_control *sc)
> >> {
> >> struct kvm *kvm;
> >> int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan;
> >> + int found = 0;
> >> unsigned long freed = 0;
> >>
> >> raw_spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> >> @@ -4349,6 +4350,12 @@ mmu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct
> >> shrink_control *sc)
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> >> +
> >> + list_move_tail(&kvm->vm_list, &vm_list);
> >> + found = 1;
> >> + /* We can't be holding a raw lock and take non-raw mmu_lock */
> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> >> +
> >> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >>
> >> if (kvm_has_zapped_obsolete_pages(kvm)) {
> >> @@ -4370,11 +4377,12 @@ unlock:
> >> * per-vm shrinkers cry out
> >> * sadness comes quickly
> >> */
> >> - list_move_tail(&kvm->vm_list, &vm_list);
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> >> + if (!found)
> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> >> +
> >> return freed;
> >>
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 1.8.1.2
> >
> > --
> > Gleb.
> >
--
Gleb.
--
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
