lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
On Mon 25-06-18 12:34:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/06/2018 10:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 25-06-18 10:10:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 25/06/2018 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Sun 24-06-18 10:11:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>> On 22/06/2018 17:02, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -7215,6 +7216,8 @@ void kvm_arch_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> >>>>> apic_address = gfn_to_hva(kvm, APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> >>>>> if (start <= apic_address && apic_address < end)
> >>>>> kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_APIC_PAGE_RELOAD);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> This is wrong, gfn_to_hva can sleep.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, I have tried to crawl the call chain and haven't found any
> >>> sleepable locks taken. Maybe I am just missing something.
> >>> __kvm_memslots has a complex locking assert. I do not see we would take
> >>> slots_lock anywhere from the notifier call path. IIUC that means that
> >>> users_count has to be zero at that time. I have no idea how that is
> >>> guaranteed.
> >>
> >> Nevermind, ENOCOFFEE. This is gfn_to_hva, not gfn_to_pfn. It only
> >> needs SRCU.
> >
> > OK, so just the make sure I follow, the change above is correct?
>
> Yes. It's only gfn_to_pfn that calls get_user_pages and therefore can
> sleep.

OK, thanks for the confirmation!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-25 13:09    [W:1.748 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site