Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <0d282be4-d612-374d-84ba-067994321bab@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:59:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Cc:     John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220407195908.633003-1-pgonda@google.com>
 <CAFNjLiXC0AdOw5f8Ovu47D==ex7F0=WN_Ocirymz4xL=mWvC5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6r-Mc_YN-gVHuCpTj4E1EmcvyYpP9jhtHo5HRHnoNJAdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6r+OMPWCbV_svUyGWa0qMzjj2UEG29G6P7jb6uH6yko2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <62e9ece1-5d71-f803-3f65-2755160cf1d1@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6q6YLBfo2RceduSXTafckEehawhD4K4hUEuB4ZNqe2kKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c0edc90-36a1-4f4c-1923-4b20e7bdbb4c@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6oL5qi7z-eh4z7z8WBhpc=Ow6WtcJA5bDi6-aGMnz135A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6rmDrZfN5DbNOTsKFV57PwEnK2zxgBTCbEPeE206+5v5w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock
In-Reply-To: <CAMkAt6rmDrZfN5DbNOTsKFV57PwEnK2zxgBTCbEPeE206+5v5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/28/22 23:28, Peter Gonda wrote:
> 
> So when actually trying this out I noticed that we are releasing the
> current vcpu iterator but really we haven't actually taken that lock
> yet. So we'd need to maintain a prev_* pointer and release that one.

Not entirely true because all vcpu->mutex.dep_maps will be for the same 
lock.  The dep_map is essentially a fancy string, in this case 
"&vcpu->mutex".

See the definition of mutex_init:

#define mutex_init(mutex)                                              \
do {                                                                   \
         static struct lock_class_key __key;                            \
                                                                        \
         __mutex_init((mutex), #mutex, &__key);                         \
} while (0)

and the dep_map field is initialized with

         lockdep_init_map_wait(&lock->dep_map, name, key, 0, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);

(i.e. all vcpu->mutexes share the same name and key because they have a 
single mutex_init-ialization site).  Lockdep is as crude in theory as it 
is effective in practice!

> 
>           bool acquired = false;
>           kvm_for_each_vcpu(...) {
>                   if (!acquired) {
>                      if (mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role)
>                          goto out_unlock;
>                      acquired = true;
>                   } else {
>                      if (mutex_lock_killable(&vcpu->mutex, role)
>                          goto out_unlock;

This will cause a lockdep splat because it uses subclass 0.  All the 
*_nested functions is allow you to specify a subclass other than zero.

Paolo

>                   }
>           }
> 
> To unlock:
> 
>           kvm_for_each_vcpu(...) {
>              mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
>           }
> 
> This way instead of mocking and releasing the lock_dep we just lock
> the fist vcpu with mutex_lock_killable_nested(). I think this
> maintains the property you suggested of "coalesces all the mutexes for
> a vm in a single subclass".  Thoughts?