On Mon, Jul 26, 2021, Ben Gardon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:52 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [ This is not the correct patch to blame, but there is something going > > on here which I don't understand so this email is more about me > > learning rather than reporting bugs. - dan ] > > > > Hello Ben Gardon, > > > > The patch 531810caa9f4: "KVM: x86/mmu: Use an rwlock for the x86 MMU" > > from Feb 2, 2021, leads to the following static checker warning: > > > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c:5769 kvm_mmu_zap_all() > > warn: sleeping in atomic context > > > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > 5756 void kvm_mmu_zap_all(struct kvm *kvm) > > 5757 { > > 5758 struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, *node; > > 5759 LIST_HEAD(invalid_list); > > 5760 int ign; > > 5761 > > 5762 write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This line bumps the preempt count. > > > > 5763 restart: > > 5764 list_for_each_entry_safe(sp, node, &kvm->arch.active_mmu_pages, link) { > > 5765 if (WARN_ON(sp->role.invalid)) > > 5766 continue; > > 5767 if (__kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(kvm, sp, &invalid_list, &ign)) > > 5768 goto restart; > > --> 5769 if (cond_resched_rwlock_write(&kvm->mmu_lock)) > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This line triggers a sleeping in atomic warning. What's going on here > > that I'm not understanding? > > > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for sending this. I'm confused by this sequence too. I'm not > sure how this could sleep in an atomic context. > My first thought was that there might be something going on with the > qrwlock's wait_lock, but since this thread already acquired the > rwlock, it can't be holding / waiting on the wait_lock. > > Then I thought the __might_sleep could be in the wrong place, but it's > in the same place for a regular spinlock, so I think that's fine. The PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET parameter to __might_sleep() __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET); \ effectively tells it to exempt a single preemption count via preempt_count_equals() void ___might_sleep(const char *file, int line, int preempt_offset) { ... if ((preempt_count_equals(preempt_offset) && !irqs_disabled() && !is_idle_task(current) && !current->non_block_count) || system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING || system_state > SYSTEM_RUNNING || oops_in_progress) return; ... } which returns true if the preempt count equals the passed in offset. PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET is just the vanilla preempt_disable() offset, which is why there's no special preemption call in the lock/unlock paths. #define PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET Dan, is this coming from Smatch? If so, is this by chance a new, in-progress warning that has special code to handle cond_resched_lock()? I couldn't find any matches on "sleeping in atomic context" in Smatch. The rwlock variants, cond_resched_rwlock_{read,write}() were added specifically for KVM's TDP MMU, maybe they snuck in after a waiver for cond_resched_lock() was added?