[PATCH 39/44] KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock
Sean Christopherson
seanjc at google.com
Thu Nov 3 10:53:31 PDT 2022
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/3/22 00:19, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +- kvm_lock is taken outside kvm->mmu_lock
>
> Not surprising since one is a mutex and one is an rwlock. :)
Heh,
Signed-off-by: Captain Obvious <seanjc at google.com>
> You can drop this hunk as well as the "Opportunistically update KVM's locking
> documentation" sentence in the commit message.
Will do.
> > - vcpu->mutex is taken outside kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock
> > - kvm->arch.mmu_lock is an rwlock. kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock and
> > @@ -216,15 +220,11 @@ time it will be set using the Dirty tracking mechanism described above.
> > :Type: mutex
> > :Arch: any
> > :Protects: - vm_list
> > -
> > -``kvm_count_lock``
> > -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > -
> > -:Type: raw_spinlock_t
> > -:Arch: any
> > -:Protects: - hardware virtualization enable/disable
> > -:Comment: 'raw' because hardware enabling/disabling must be atomic /wrt
> > - migration.
> > + - kvm_usage_count
> > + - hardware virtualization enable/disable
> > + - module probing (x86 only)
>
> What do you mean exactly by "module probing"? Is it anything else than what
> is serialized by vendor_module_lock?
Ooh, I forgot to update this patch after switching to vendor_module_lock. I
added the above after fixing the first deadlock between kvm_lock and cpu_hotplug_lock,
but later gave up on trying to use kvm_lock after deadlock #2, which is when I
when I realized piggybacking kvm_lock was going to be a maintainance nightmare due.
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list