On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 08:34:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 08/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -8172,6 +8174,10 @@ static int vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp
> > > > > ++vcpu->stat.signal_exits;
> > > > > break;
> > > > > }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (notify_resume_pending())
> > > > > + tracehook_handle_notify_resume();
> > > >
> > > > shouldn't you drop kvm->srcu before tracehook_handle_notify_resume() ?
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand this code at all, but vcpu_run() does this even
> > > > before
> > > > cond_resched().
> > >
> > > Yeah, I noticed that it's dropped around cond_resched().
> > >
> > > My understanding is that for voluntary giving up the CPU via
> > > cond_resched()
> > > it needs to be dropped.
> > >
> > > For involuntary preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y) it's not required as the
> > > whole code section after preempt_enable() is fully preemptible.
> > >
> > > Now the 1Mio$ question is whether any of the notify functions invokes
> > > cond_resched() and whether that really matters. Paolo?
> >
> > cond_resched() is called via tracehook_notify_resume()->task_work_run(),
> > and "kernel code can only call cond_resched() in places where it ...
> > cannot hold references to any RCU-protected data structures" according to
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/603252/.
>
> Right you are.
Bah. Hit send too fast.
Right you are about cond_resched() being called, but for SRCU this does not
matter unless there is some way to do a synchronize operation on that SRCU
entity. It might have some other performance side effect though.
Thanks,
tglx
