On 2011-02-10 13:34, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/10/2011 01:31 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -3607,10 +3607,14 @@ static int mmu_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>> spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
>>>> }
>>>> - if (kvm_freed)
>>>> - list_move_tail(&kvm_freed->vm_list,&vm_list);
>>>> + if (kvm_freed) {
>>>> + raw_spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
>>>> + if (!kvm->deleted)
>>>> + list_move_tail(&kvm_freed->vm_list,&vm_list);
>>>
>>> There is no list_move_tail_rcu().
>>
>> ...specifically not for this one.
>
> Well, we can add one if needed (and if possible).
I can have a look, at least at the lower hanging fruits.
>
>>>
>>> Why check kvm->deleted? it's in the process of being torn down anyway,
>>> it doesn't matter if mmu_shrink or kvm_destroy_vm pulls the trigger.
>>
>> kvm_destroy_vm removes a vm from the list while mmu_shrink is running.
>> Then mmu_shrink's list_move_tail will re-add that vm to the list tail
>> again (unless already the removal in move_tail produces a crash).
>
> It's too subtle. Communication across threads with a variable needs
> memory barriers (even though they're nops on x86) and documentation.
The barriers are provided by this spin lock we acquire for testing are
modifying deleted.
>
> btw, not even sure if it's legal: you have a mutating call within an rcu
> read critical section for the same object. If synchronize_rcu() were
> called there, would it ever terminate?
Why not? kvm_destroy_vm is not preventing blocking mmu_shrink to acquire
the kvm_lock where we then find the vm deleted and release both kvm_lock
and the rcu read "lock" afterwards.
>
> (not that synchronize_rcu() is a good thing there, better do it with
> call_rcu()).
What's the benefit? The downside is a bit more complexity as you need an
additional callback handler.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
