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;
Subject: Re: 5.13-rt1 + KVM = WARNING: at fs/eventfd.c:74 eventfd_signal()
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <jlelli@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        He Zhe <zhe.he@windriver.com>
References: <df278db6-1fc0-3d42-9c0e-f5a085c6351e@redhat.com>
 <8dfc0ee9-b97a-8ca8-d057-31c8cad3f5b6@redhat.com>
 <f0254740-944d-201b-9a66-9db1fe480ca6@redhat.com>
 <475f84e2-78ee-1a24-ef57-b16c1f2651ed@redhat.com>
 <20210715102249.2205-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20210716020611.2288-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20210716075539.2376-1-hdanton@sina.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <8759e324-418b-493a-adee-236738cc3a4f@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:59:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210716075539.2376-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 16/07/21 09:55, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 08:54:58 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 16/07/21 04:06, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>>> With the patch:
>>>> 	- no warn
>>>> 	- continue using the VM normally...
>>> Well with the patch applied, the VM works fine without the stuff protected
>>> by the spin_lock_irqsave(), then without the patch why simply printing a
>>> warning makes the VM dumb, given the warning is there actually also
>>> preventing you from touching the lock.
>>
>> If the warning is triggered, eventfd_signal will not do the wakeup.
> 
> [I am assuming we are not talking about the deadlock in the comment.]
> 
> No preemption occured without the warning printed.
> Why will the wakeup behavior change without peemption?

Sorry, I don't follow.  What I'm saying is that without the patch:

* the warning only occurs if preemption occurs during the 
spin_lock_irqsave critical section (and therefore it can only occur in 
PREEMPT_RT kernels)

* the warning causes an early return 0 that messes up the VM's networking

Paolo