[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 07/15] KVM: Use dedicated flag to track if KVM is handling an NMI from guest
- To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:58:35 +0000
- Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>, Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Hu <nickhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx>, Vincent Chen <deanbo422@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>, James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>, Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@xxxxxxxxx>, Like Xu <like.xu.linux@xxxxxxxxx>, Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:58:42 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 05:57:10PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > index 5cedc0e8a5d5..4c5ba4128b38 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > @@ -395,9 +395,10 @@ static inline void kvm_unregister_perf_callbacks(void)
> >
> > DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, current_vcpu);
> >
> > -static inline void kvm_before_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +static inline void kvm_before_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool is_nmi)
> > {
> > __this_cpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.handling_nmi_from_guest, is_nmi);
> >
> > kvm_register_perf_callbacks();
> > }
> > @@ -406,6 +407,7 @@ static inline void kvm_after_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu)
> > {
> > kvm_unregister_perf_callbacks();
> >
> > + WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.handling_nmi_from_guest, false);
> > __this_cpu_write(current_vcpu, NULL);
> > }
>
> Does this rely on kvm_{,un}register_perf_callback() being a function
> call and thus implying a sequence point to order the stores?
No, I'm just terrible at remembering which macros provide what ordering
guarantees,
i.e. I was thinking WRITE_ONCE provided guarantees against compiler reordering.
|