lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 10/11] kvm: arm64: Set up hyp percpu data for nVHE
> > -#define this_cpu_ptr_nvhe(sym)		this_cpu_ptr(&kvm_nvhe_sym(sym))
> > -#define per_cpu_ptr_nvhe(sym, cpu) per_cpu_ptr(&kvm_nvhe_sym(sym), cpu)
> > +/* Array of percpu base addresses. Length of the array is nr_cpu_ids. */
> > +extern unsigned long *kvm_arm_hyp_percpu_base;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Compute pointer to a symbol defined in nVHE percpu region.
> > + * Returns NULL if percpu memory has not been allocated yet.
> > + */
> > +#define this_cpu_ptr_nvhe(sym) per_cpu_ptr_nvhe(sym, smp_processor_id())
>
> Don't you run into similar problems here with the pcpu accessors when
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y? I'm worried we can end up with an unresolved
> reference to debug_smp_processor_id().

Fortunately not. This now doesn't use the generic macros at all.

> > /* The VMID used in the VTTBR */
> > static atomic64_t kvm_vmid_gen = ATOMIC64_INIT(1);
> > @@ -1258,6 +1259,15 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +#define kvm_hyp_percpu_base(cpu) ((unsigned long)per_cpu_ptr_nvhe(__per_cpu_start, cpu))
>
> Having both kvm_arm_hyp_percpu_base and kvm_hyp_percpu_base be so
> completely different is a recipe for disaster! Please can you rename
> one/both of them to make it clearer what they represent?

I am heavily simplifying this code in v4. Got rid of this macro completely, so
hopefully there will be no confusion.

> > - if (!kvm_pmu_switch_needed(attr))
> > + if (!ctx || !kvm_pmu_switch_needed(attr))
> > return;
> >
> > if (!attr->exclude_host)
> > @@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u32 clr)
> > {
> > struct kvm_host_data *ctx = this_cpu_ptr_hyp(kvm_host_data);
> >
> > + if (!ctx)
> > + return;
>
> I guess this should only happen if KVM failed to initialise or something,
> right? (e.g. if we were booted at EL1). If so, I'm wondering whether it
> would be better to do something like:
>
> if (!is_hyp_mode_available())
> return;
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!ctx);
>
> so that any unexpected NULL pointer there screams loudly, rather than causes
> the register switch to be silently ignored. What do you think?

Unfortunately, this happens on every boot. I don't fully understand how the
boot order is determined, so please correct me if this makes no sense, but
kvm_clr_pmu_events is called as part of CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_STARTING. The first
time that happens is before KVM initialized (tested from inserting
BUG_ON(!ctx)). That's not a problem, the per-CPU memory is there and it's all
zeroes. It becomes a problem with this patch because the per-CPU memory is not
there *yet*.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-22 20:35    [W:0.062 / U:6.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site