Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:47:22 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] x86/kvm: Handle task_work on VMENTER/EXIT
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012343530.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012345000.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20190801143250.370326052@linutronix.de> <20190801143657.887648487@linutronix.de> <20190801162451.GE31538@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012025100.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20190801213550.GE6783@linux.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012343530.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 08:34:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 08/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -8172,6 +8174,10 @@ static int vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp
> > > > >  			++vcpu->stat.signal_exits;
> > > > >  			break;
> > > > >  		}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		if (notify_resume_pending())
> > > > > +			tracehook_handle_notify_resume();
> > > > 
> > > > shouldn't you drop kvm->srcu before tracehook_handle_notify_resume() ?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand this code at all, but vcpu_run() does this even before
> > > > cond_resched().
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I noticed that it's dropped around cond_resched().
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that for voluntary giving up the CPU via cond_resched()
> > > it needs to be dropped.
> > > 
> > > For involuntary preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y) it's not required as the
> > > whole code section after preempt_enable() is fully preemptible.
> > > 
> > > Now the 1Mio$ question is whether any of the notify functions invokes
> > > cond_resched() and whether that really matters. Paolo?
> > 
> > cond_resched() is called via tracehook_notify_resume()->task_work_run(),
> > and "kernel code can only call cond_resched() in places where it ...
> > cannot hold references to any RCU-protected data structures" according to
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/603252/.
> 
> Right you are.

Bah. Hit send too fast.

Right you are about cond_resched() being called, but for SRCU this does not
matter unless there is some way to do a synchronize operation on that SRCU
entity. It might have some other performance side effect though.

Thanks,

	tglx