On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 01:33 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > @@ -9283,7 +9283,13 @@ static int > > kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops) > > int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(cpu); > > > > - WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()); > > + /* > > + * Compatibility checks are done when loading KVM and when enabling > > + * hardware, e.g. during CPU hotplug, to ensure all online CPUs are > > + * compatible, i.e. KVM should never perform a compatibility check > > on > > + * an offline CPU. > > + */ > > + WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled() && cpu_active(cpu)); > > > > Also, the logic of: > > !irqs_disabled() && cpu_active(cpu) > > is quite weird. > > The original "WARN(!irqs_disabled())" is reasonable because in STARTING > section > the IRQ is indeed disabled. > > But this doesn't make sense anymore after we move to ONLINE section, in which > IRQ has already been enabled (see start_secondary()). IIUC the WARN_ON() > doesn't get exploded is purely because there's an additional cpu_active(cpu) > check. > > So, a more reasonable check should be something like: > > WARN_ON(irqs_disabled() || cpu_active(cpu) || !cpu_online(cpu)); > > Or we can simply do: > > WARN_ON(!cpu_online(cpu) || cpu_active(cpu)); > > (because I don't know whether it's possible IRQ can somehow get disabled in > ONLINE section). > > Btw above is purely based on code analysis, but I haven't done any test.
Hmm.. I wasn't thinking thoroughly. I forgot CPU compatibility check also happens on all online cpus when loading KVM. For this case, IRQ is disabled and cpu_active() is true. For the hotplug case, IRQ is enabled but cpu_active() is false. So WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled() && cpu_active(cpu)) looks reasonable. Sorry for the noise. Just needed some time to connect the comment with the code.
