On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 05:24:59PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 12/07/2011 04:18 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:29:59PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>
> >>+/*
> >>+ * kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op: Kick a vcpu.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @cpu - vcpu to be kicked.
> >>+ */
> >>+static void kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op(struct kvm *kvm, int cpu)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, cpu);
> >>+ struct kvm_mp_state mp_state;
> >>+
> >>+ mp_state.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE;
> >
> >Since vcpu->mp_state is not protected by a lock, this is potentially racy. For example:
> >
> >CPU0 CPU1
> >kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op running vcpuN
> >vcpuN->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE;
> > kvm_emulate_halt
> > vcpuN->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED
> >
> >Is it harmless to lose a kick?
> >
>
> Yes you are right. It was potentially racy and it was harmful too!.
> I had observed that it was stalling the CPU before I introduced
> kicked flag.
>
> But now,
>
> vcpu->kicked = 1 ==> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu); ==>
Ok, please use a more descriptive name, such as "pvlock_kicked" or
something.
>
> __vcpu_run() ==> kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu) ==>
>
> vcpuN->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE; so eventually we will end up
> in RUNNABLE.
>
> Also Avi pointed that, logically kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_mpstate should
> be called only in vcpu thread, so after further debugging, I noticed
> that, setting vcpuN->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE; is not
> necessary.
> I 'll remove that in the next patch. Thanks for pointing.
In fact you don't need kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_mpstate either, only the
new "kicked" flag.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
