lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm_lock non-raw
On 13-09-22 05:53 AM, 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?
>
>> 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?

The -rt tree regularly carries mainline backports that are of interest
to -rt but perhaps not of interest to stable, so there is no problem
doing the same with content like this, if desired.

Thanks,
Paul.
--

>
> --
> Gleb.
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-23 16:01    [W:0.111 / U:7.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site