Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: disable interrupts while pvclock_gtod_sync_lock is taken

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 01/04/21 17:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > -       spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> > +       spin_lock_irqsave(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock, flags);
> >          use_master_clock = ka->use_master_clock;
> >          if (use_master_clock) {
> >                  host_tsc = ka->master_cycle_now;
> >                  kernel_ns = ka->master_kernel_ns;
> >          }
> > -       spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> > +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock, flags);
> >
> >          /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
> >          local_irq_save(flags);
> That seems a little gratuitous at the end; restoring the flags as part
> of the spin_unlock_irqrestore() and then immediately calling
> local_irq_save().
>
> Is something going to complain if we just use spin_unlock() there and
> then later restore the flags with the existing local_irq_restore()?

Yes, I think it breaks on RT kernels.

> Or should we move the local_irq_save() up above the existing
> spin_lock() and leave the spin lock/unlock as they are?

Nope, also breaks on RT (and this one is explicitly called out by 
Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst).  Since it's necessary to use 
spin_lock_irqsave and spin_unlock_irqrestore, one would need flags and 
flags2 variables which is really horrible.

I thought of a similar one which is to move the critical section within 
the IRQ-disabled region:

        local_irq_save(flags);
	...
        spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
        use_master_clock = ka->use_master_clock;
        if (use_master_clock) {
                host_tsc = ka->master_cycle_now;
                kernel_ns = ka->master_kernel_ns;
        } else {
                host_tsc = rdtsc();
                kernel_ns = get_kvmclock_base_ns();
        }
        spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
	...
	local_irq_restore(flags);

... but didn't do it because of RT again.

Paolo