lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 31/03/21 21:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I also thought of busy waiting on down_read_trylock if the MMU notifier
> > cannot block, but that would also be invalid for the opposite reason (the
> > down_write task might be asleep, waiting for other readers to release the
> > task, and the down_read_trylock busy loop might not let that task run).
> >
> > > And that's _already_ the worst case since notifications are currently
> > > serialized by mmu_lock.
> >
> > But right now notifications are not a single critical section, they're two,
> > aren't they?
>
> Ah, crud, yes. Holding a spinlock across the entire start() ... end() would be
> bad, especially when the notifier can block since that opens up the possibility
> of the task sleeping/blocking/yielding while the spinlock is held. Bummer.

On a related topic, any preference on whether to have an explicit "must_lock"
flag (what I posted), or derive the logic based on other params?

The helper I posted does:

if (range->must_lock &&
kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked))
goto out_unlock;

but it could be:

if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock) && !range->may_block &&
kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked))
goto out_unlock;

The generated code should be nearly identical on a modern compiler, so it's
purely a question of aesthetics. I slightly prefer the explicit "must_lock" to
avoid spreading out the logic too much, but it also feels a bit superfluous.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-31 23:25    [W:0.068 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site