On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 01:40:33PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-03-13 13:29, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:36:58PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2013-03-13 12:16, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -5871,8 +5867,8 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
> >>>>> kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> >>>>> vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> >>>>> - if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu))
> >>>>> - {
> >>>>> + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu)) {
> >>>>> + kvm_apic_accept_events(vcpu);
> >>>> I think we can drop this. If INIT happens while vcpu is halted it will
> >>>> become runnable here and kvm_apic_accept_events() will be called in
> >>>> vcpu_enter_guest().
> >>>
> >>> I'm not that sure, but I will recheck carefully.
> >>
> >> Doesn't work: If the state was INIT_RECEIVED, we will not process the
> >> SIPI but reenter kvm_vcpu_block.
> > Which raises the question. What if vcpu is in INIT_RECEIVED and it
> > receives NMI. It will make kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() return true but code
> > will get back to kvm_vcpu_block() again.
>
> Sounds like we had a bug in this area before. This patch won't improve
> it yet. We need to "block NMIs" while in wait-for-sipi state.
>
The problem we have now is much more serious in fact. Since INIT does
not reset vcpu even regular interrupt can cause this. I wounder what
should happen to NMIs that were received while CPU is in INIT state?
> BTW, I'v just stumbled over more suspicious code:
>
> static int __apic_accept_irq(struct kvm_lapic *apic, int delivery_mode,
> ...
> switch (delivery_mode) {
> case APIC_DM_LOWEST:
> vcpu->arch.apic_arb_prio++;
>
> What makes this (remote) increment safe that we can avoid an atomic inc?
>
Because we do not really care about result.
> >
> >> And it's more consistent to process the
> >> events here IMHO.
> >>
> > I would like to minimize a number of places kvm_apic_accept_events()
> > is called, but it looks like we cannot remove it from here indeed. What
> > about calling it in "case: KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED"?
>
> Should work, but what is the benefit? I'd prefer to avoid temporary
> switching to RUNNABLE, entering vcpu_enter_guest just to find out it was
> an INIT_RECEIVED transition. Checking unconditionally makes the control
> flow simpler.
>
OK.
--
Gleb.
--
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
