[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] nvmx deadlock with MSR bitmaps
On 12.03.20 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote: On 12.03.2020 14:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote:On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:12:12PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:On 12.03.20 11:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:59:48AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:On 11.03.2020 19:04, Andrew Cooper wrote:Specifically, this is a switch from an HVM vcpu, to a PV vcpu, where the mapcache code tries to access the per-domain mappings on the HVM monitor table. It ends up trying to recursively acquire the mapcache lock while trying to walk %cr2 to identify the source of the fault. For nvmx->msr_merged, this needs to either be a xenheap page, or a globally mapped domheap page. I'll draft a patch in a moment. For map_domain_page(), is there anything we can rationally do to assert that it isn't called in the middle of a context switch? This is the kind of thing which needs to blow up reliably in a debug build.Well, it's not inherently unsafe to do, it's just that mapcache_current_vcpu() would need to avoid using current from context_switch()'s call to set_current() through to __context_switch()'s call to write_ptbase(). A possible detection (if we don't want to make the case work) would seem to be ASSERT(current == this_cpu(curr_vcpu)). But of course there's also this extra logic in mapcache_current_vcpu() to deal with a PV vCPU having a null v->arch.guest_table, which I'm once again struggling to see under what conditions it might happen. The Dom0 building case can't be meant with there being mapcache_override_current() on that path. I'm wondering if the comment there is misleading and it's really to cover the case where, coming from a PV vCPU, current was already set to the idle vCPU by context_switch() (which would have a null v->arch.guest_table) - I wouldn't call this "we are running a paravirtualised guest". But in such a case the logic here would simply be a (too) special case of what you're describing as the issue with nVMX.Looking at the code in context_switch and __context_switch would it be possible to set current to the next vCPU after all the from hooks have been called? Ie: set_current could be moved into __context_switch after the call to pd->arch.ctxt_switch->from(p).No, wouldn't work. When switching to idle __context_switch() is normally not called in order to avoid switching the address space in case the same vcpu will be scheduled again after idle. This is the reason why current and curr_vcpu can be different.Since the idle vCPU context switch is already a special case we could maybe place the call to set_current in such special handling, while leaving the call for the rest of vCPUs in __context_switch after the ->from hooks have been executed?I'm also not sure I understand the difference between context_switch and __context_switch, and how are callers supposed to use them.Jan points out that __context_switch signals a pending context switch, in which case my proposal to use set_current might not be suitable, as we would be changing current without actually doing the context switch? I also wonder why __context_switch then needs to call the ->from hook just to signal a pending context switch. It seems like __context_switch does a lot of work just to signal a context switch, which will then be redone when context_switch is actually called?Well, "signal" was perhaps not the best choice of a word. Basically you can say that context_switch() is switching vcpus logically (Xen internal bookkeeping), while __context_switch() is switching the runtime environment (address space, GDT settings, cr4, ...). Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |