Message-ID: <523FDFFC.8050600@siemens.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:30:20 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm_lock non-raw
References: <1379340373-5135-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130922074238.GG25202@redhat.com> <523EAFFA.6060203@redhat.com> <20130922095348.GJ25202@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130922095348.GJ25202@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2502
Lines: 57

On 2013-09-22 11:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:53:14AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 22/09/2013 09:42, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:06:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Paul Gortmaker reported a BUG on preempt-rt kernels, due to taking the
>>>> mmu_lock within the raw kvm_lock in mmu_shrink_scan.  He provided a
>>>> patch that shrunk the kvm_lock critical section so that the mmu_lock
>>>> critical section does not nest with it, but in the end there is no reason
>>>> for the vm_list to be protected by a raw spinlock.  Only manipulations
>>>> of kvm_usage_count and the consequent hardware_enable/disable operations
>>>> are not preemptable.
>>>>
>>>> This small series thus splits the kvm_lock in the "raw" part and the
>>>> "non-raw" part.
>>>>
>>>> Paul, could you please provide your Tested-by?
>>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> But why should it go to stable?
>>
>> It is a regression from before the kvm_lock was made raw.  Secondarily,
> It was made raw in 2.6.39 and commit message claims that it is done for
> -rt sake, why regression was noticed only now?

Probably, the patch is stressed to infrequently. Just checked: the issue
was present from day #1 one, what a shame.

> 
>> it takes a much longer time before a patch hits -rt trees (can even be
>> as much as a year) and this patch does nothing on non-rt trees.  So
>> without putting it into stable it would get no actual coverage.
>>
> The change is not completely trivial, it splits lock. There is no
> obvious problem of course, otherwise you wouldn't send it and I
> would ack it :), but it does not mean that the chance for problem is
> zero, so why risk stability of stable even a little bit if the patch
> does not fix anything in stable?
> 
> I do not know how -rt development goes and how it affects decisions for
> stable acceptance, why can't they carry the patch in their tree until
> they move to 3.12?

I think it would be fair to let stable -rt carry these. -rt requires
more specific patching anyway due to the waitqueue issue Paul reported.
But CC'ing Steven to obtain his view.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/