Il 27/06/2013 13:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 06:34:03PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> In commit e935b8372cf8 ("KVM: Convert kvm_lock to raw_spinlock"),
> I am copying Jan, the author of the patch. Commit message says:
> "Code under this lock requires non-preemptibility", but which code
> exactly is this? Is this still true?
hardware_enable_nolock/hardware_disable_nolock does.
Paolo
>> the kvm_lock was made a raw lock. However, the kvm mmu_shrink()
>> function tries to grab the (non-raw) mmu_lock within the scope of
>> the raw locked kvm_lock being held. This leads to the following:
>>
>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:659
>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 55, name: kswapd0
>> Preemption disabled at:[<ffffffffa0376eac>] mmu_shrink+0x5c/0x1b0 [kvm]
>>
>> Pid: 55, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 3.4.34_preempt-rt
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff8106f2ad>] __might_sleep+0xfd/0x160
>> [<ffffffff817d8d64>] rt_spin_lock+0x24/0x50
>> [<ffffffffa0376f3c>] mmu_shrink+0xec/0x1b0 [kvm]
>> [<ffffffff8111455d>] shrink_slab+0x17d/0x3a0
>> [<ffffffff81151f00>] ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x130/0x260
>> [<ffffffff8111824a>] balance_pgdat+0x54a/0x730
>> [<ffffffff8111fe47>] ? set_pgdat_percpu_threshold+0xa7/0xd0
>> [<ffffffff811185bf>] kswapd+0x18f/0x490
>> [<ffffffff81070961>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
>> [<ffffffff81061970>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x50/0x50
>> [<ffffffff81118430>] ? balance_pgdat+0x730/0x730
>> [<ffffffff81060d2b>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
>> [<ffffffff8106e122>] ? finish_task_switch+0x52/0x100
>> [<ffffffff817e1e94>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>> [<ffffffff81060c50>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x
>>
>> Since we only use the lock for protecting the vm_list, once we've
>> found the instance we want, we can shuffle it to the end of the
>> list and then drop the kvm_lock before taking the mmu_lock. We
>> can do this because after the mmu operations are completed, we
>> break -- i.e. we don't continue list processing, so it doesn't
>> matter if the list changed around us.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> [Note1: do double check that this solution makes sense for the
>> mainline kernel; consider this an RFC patch that does want a
>> review from people in the know.]
>>
>> [Note2: you'll need to be running a preempt-rt kernel to actually
>> see this. Also note that the above patch is against linux-next.
>> Alternate solutions welcome ; this seemed to me the obvious fix.]
>>
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> index 748e0d8..db93a70 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -4322,6 +4322,7 @@ mmu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>> {
>> struct kvm *kvm;
>> int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan;
>> + int found = 0;
>> unsigned long freed = 0;
>>
>> raw_spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
>> @@ -4349,6 +4350,12 @@ mmu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>> continue;
>>
>> idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>> +
>> + list_move_tail(&kvm->vm_list, &vm_list);
>> + found = 1;
>> + /* We can't be holding a raw lock and take non-raw mmu_lock */
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
>> +
>> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>
>> if (kvm_has_zapped_obsolete_pages(kvm)) {
>> @@ -4370,11 +4377,12 @@ unlock:
>> * per-vm shrinkers cry out
>> * sadness comes quickly
>> */
>> - list_move_tail(&kvm->vm_list, &vm_list);
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
>> + if (!found)
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
>> +
>> return freed;
>>
>> }
>> --
>> 1.8.1.2
>
> --
> 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
