Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:40:21 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, dwmw@amazon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: reduce pvclock_gtod_sync_lock critical
 sections
Message-ID: <20210407174021.GA30046@fuller.cnet>
References: <20210330165958.3094759-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20210330165958.3094759-2-pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210330165958.3094759-2-pbonzini@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:59:57PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> There is no need to include changes to vcpu->requests into
> the pvclock_gtod_sync_lock critical section.  The changes to
> the shared data structures (in pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy)
> already occur under the lock.
> 
> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index fe806e894212..0a83eff40b43 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -2562,10 +2562,12 @@ static void kvm_gen_update_masterclock(struct kvm *kvm)
>  
>  	kvm_hv_invalidate_tsc_page(kvm);
>  
> -	spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
>  	kvm_make_mclock_inprogress_request(kvm);
> +

Might be good to serialize against two kvm_gen_update_masterclock
callers? Otherwise one caller could clear KVM_REQ_MCLOCK_INPROGRESS,
while the other is still at pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy().

Otherwise, looks good.