KVM: x86: silence preempt warning on kvm_write_guest_time
This issue just appeared in kvm-84 when running on 2.6.28.7 (x86-64) with PREEMPT enabled. We're getting syslog warnings like this many (but not all) times qemu tells KVM to run the VCPU: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: qemu-system-x86/28938 caller is kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x5d1/0xc70 [kvm] Pid: 28938, comm: qemu-system-x86 2.6.28.7-mtyrel-64bit Call Trace: debug_smp_processor_id+0xf7/0x100 kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x5d1/0xc70 [kvm] ? __wake_up+0x4e/0x70 ? wake_futex+0x27/0x40 kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x2e9/0x5a0 [kvm] enqueue_hrtimer+0x8a/0x110 _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x27/0x50 vfs_ioctl+0x31/0xa0 do_vfs_ioctl+0x74/0x480 sys_futex+0xb4/0x140 sys_ioctl+0x99/0xa0 system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b As it turns out, the call trace is messed up due to gcc's inlining, but I isolated the problem anyway: kvm_write_guest_time() is being used in a non-thread-safe manner on preemptable kernels. Basically kvm_write_guest_time()'s body needs to be surrounded by preempt_disable() and preempt_enable(), since the kernel won't let us query any per-CPU data (indirectly using smp_processor_id()) without preemption disabled. The attached patch fixes this issue by disabling preemption inside kvm_write_guest_time(). [marcelo: surround only __get_cpu_var calls since the warning is harmless] Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
d510d6cc65
commit
2dea4c84bc
@ -634,10 +634,12 @@ static void kvm_write_guest_time(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
|
||||
if ((!vcpu->time_page))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
preempt_disable();
|
||||
if (unlikely(vcpu->hv_clock_tsc_khz != __get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz))) {
|
||||
kvm_set_time_scale(__get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz), &vcpu->hv_clock);
|
||||
vcpu->hv_clock_tsc_khz = __get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
|
||||
}
|
||||
preempt_enable();
|
||||
|
||||
/* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
|
||||
local_irq_save(flags);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user