Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: privcmd: schedule() after private hypercall when non CONFIG_PREEMPT

From: David Vrabel
Date: Mon Dec 01 2014 - 13:16:38 EST

On 01/12/14 16:19, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:54:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 01/12/14 15:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 01/12/14 15:05, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:11:43AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/11/14 18:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:36:31AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2014 11:26 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> Some folks had reported that some xen hypercalls take a long time
>>>>>>>>> to complete when issued from the userspace private ioctl mechanism,
>>>>>>>>> this can happen for instance with some hypercalls that have many
>>>>>>>>> sub-operations, this can happen for instance on hypercalls that use
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl_hypercall(void __user *udata)
>>>>>>>>> hypercall.arg[0], hypercall.arg[1],
>>>>>>>>> hypercall.arg[2], hypercall.arg[3],
>>>>>>>>> hypercall.arg[4]);
>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>>>>>>>>> + schedule();
>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> As Juergen points out, this does nothing. You need to schedule while in
>>>>>> the middle of the hypercall.
>>>>>> Remember that Xen's hypercall preemption only preempts the hypercall to
>>>>>> run interrupts in the guest.
>>>>> How is it ensured that when the kernel preempts on this code path on
>>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel that only interrupts in the guest are run?
>>>> Sorry, I really didn't describe this very well.
>>>> If a hypercall needs a continuation, Xen returns to the guest with the
>>>> IP set to the hypercall instruction, and on the way back to the guest
>>>> Xen may schedule a different VCPU or it will do any upcalls (as per normal).
>>>> The guest is free to return from the upcall to the original task
>>>> (continuing the hypercall) or to a different one.
>>> OK so that addresses what Xen will do when using continuation and
>>> hypercall preemption, my concern here was that using
>>> preempt_schedule_irq() on CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels in the middle of a
>>> hypercall on the return from an interrupt (e.g., the timer interrupt)
>>> would still let the kernel preempt to tasks other than those related
>>> to Xen.
>> Um. Why would that be a problem? We do want to switch to any task the
>> Linux scheduler thinks is best.
> Its safe but -- it technically is doing kernel preemption, unless we want
> to adjust the definition of CONFIG_PREEMPT=n to exclude hypercalls. This
> was my original concern with the use of preempt_schedule_irq() to do this.
> I am afraid of setting precedents without being clear or wider review and
> acceptance.

It's voluntary preemption at a well defined point. It's no different to
a cond_resched() call.

Note that we're not trying to fix this for the non-voluntary-preempt

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at