Re: [patch 0/4] move irq protection role to separate lock v2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christian Bornträger wrote:
@@ -2053,6 +2054,9 @@ static long kvm_vm_ioctl(struct file *fi

 	if (kvm->mm != current->mm)
 		return -EIO;
+
+	mutex_lock(&kvm->vm_ioctl_lock);
+
 	switch (ioctl) {
 	case KVM_CREATE_VCPU:
 		r = kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(kvm, arg);
@@ -2228,6 +2232,7 @@ static long kvm_vm_ioctl(struct file *fi
 		r = kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(filp, ioctl, arg);
 	}
 out:
+	mutex_unlock(&kvm->vm_ioctl_lock);
 	return r;
 }

The thing that looks worrysome is that the s390 version of kvm_arch_vm_ioctl has KVM_S390_INTERRUPT. This allows userspace to inject interrupts - which would be serialized. The thing is, that external interrupts and I/O interrupts are floating - which means they can arrive on all cpus. This is somewhat of a fast path. On the other hand, kvm_s390_inject_vm already takes the kvm->lock to protect agains hotplug. With this patch we might be able to remove the kvm->lock in kvm_s390_inject_vm - that would reduce the impact.
This needs more thinking on our side.

x86 actually shares the same problem. KVM_IRQ_LINE interrupts may arrive at any vcpu. Furthermore, with irqfd interrupts may be injected from userspace (the vm process or other processes) or from the kernel (assigned device, kernel virtio-net device). So we have the same motivation to drop this lock and replace it by rcu for the fast paths.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux