On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 20:16 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually, you're right (and wrong). You're right in that the WARN is flawed.
> And
> the reason for that is because you're wrong about the hotplug case. In this
> version
> of things, the compatibility checks are routed through hardware enabling,
> i.e. this
> flow is used only when loading KVM. This helper should only be called via
> SMP function
> call, which means that IRQs should always be disabled.
Did you mean below code change in later patch "[PATCH 39/44] KVM: Drop
kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock"?
/*
* Abort the CPU online process if hardware virtualization cannot
* be enabled. Otherwise running VMs would encounter unrecoverable
@@ -5039,13 +5039,16 @@ static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
if (kvm_usage_count) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&hardware_enable_failed));
+ local_irq_save(flags);
hardware_enable_nolock(NULL);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
+
