| Message ID | 20130813200211.GA27811@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 08/13/2013 01:02 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> [2013-08-13 18:55:52]: > >> Would be nice to have a delta fix patch against tip:x86/spinlocks, which >> I'll then backmerge into that series via rebasing it. >> > There was a namespace collision of PER_CPU lock_waiting variable when > we have both Xen and KVM enabled. > > Perhaps this week wasn't for me. Had run 100 times randconfig in a loop > for the fix sent earlier :(. > > Ingo, below delta patch should fix it, IIRC, I hope you will be folding this > back to patch 14/14 itself. Else please let me. > I have already run allnoconfig, allyesconfig, randconfig with below patch. But will > test again. This should apply on top of tip:x86/spinlocks. > > ---8<--- > From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Fix Namespace collision for lock_waiting > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c > index d442471..b8ef630 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c > @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ struct kvm_lock_waiting { > static cpumask_t waiting_cpus; > > /* Track spinlock on which a cpu is waiting */ > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, lock_waiting); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, klock_waiting); Has static stopped meaning static? J > > static void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want) > { > @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ static void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want) > if (in_nmi()) > return; > > - w = &__get_cpu_var(lock_waiting); > + w = &__get_cpu_var(klock_waiting); > cpu = smp_processor_id(); > start = spin_time_start(); > > @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static void kvm_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t ticket) > > add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW, 1); > for_each_cpu(cpu, &waiting_cpus) { > - const struct kvm_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(lock_waiting, cpu); > + const struct kvm_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(klock_waiting, cpu); > if (ACCESS_ONCE(w->lock) == lock && > ACCESS_ONCE(w->want) == ticket) { > add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW_KICKED, 1); > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 08/14/2013 01:30 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 08/13/2013 01:02 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: [...] >> Ingo, below delta patch should fix it, IIRC, I hope you will be folding this >> back to patch 14/14 itself. Else please let me. it was.. s/Please let me know/ [...] >> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, lock_waiting); >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, klock_waiting); > > Has static stopped meaning static? > I see it is expanded to static extern, since we have CONFIG_DEBUG_FORCE_WEAK_PER_CPU=y for allyesconfig -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 08/14/2013 01:32 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > Ingo, below delta patch should fix it, IIRC, I hope you will be folding this > back to patch 14/14 itself. Else please let me. > I have already run allnoconfig, allyesconfig, randconfig with below patch. But will > test again. I Did 2 more runs of allyesconfig, allnoconfig, and 40 runs of randconfig. patchset with the fix looking good now. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c index d442471..b8ef630 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ struct kvm_lock_waiting { static cpumask_t waiting_cpus; /* Track spinlock on which a cpu is waiting */ -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, lock_waiting); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_lock_waiting, klock_waiting); static void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want) { @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ static void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want) if (in_nmi()) return; - w = &__get_cpu_var(lock_waiting); + w = &__get_cpu_var(klock_waiting); cpu = smp_processor_id(); start = spin_time_start(); @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static void kvm_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t ticket) add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW, 1); for_each_cpu(cpu, &waiting_cpus) { - const struct kvm_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(lock_waiting, cpu); + const struct kvm_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(klock_waiting, cpu); if (ACCESS_ONCE(w->lock) == lock && ACCESS_ONCE(w->want) == ticket) { add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW_KICKED, 1);