From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Use separate subclasses for PI wakeup lock to squash false positive
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 08:47:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250401154727.835231-3-seanjc@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250401154727.835231-1-seanjc@google.com>
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Use a separate subclass when acquiring KVM's per-CPU posted interrupts
wakeup lock in the scheduled out path, i.e. when adding a vCPU on the list
of vCPUs to wake, to workaround a false positive deadlock.
Chain exists of:
&p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock --> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu)
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
lock(&rq->__lock);
lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
lock(&p->pi_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
In the wakeup handler, the callchain is *always*:
sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_wakeup_ipi()
|
--> pi_wakeup_handler()
|
--> kvm_vcpu_wake_up()
|
--> try_to_wake_up(),
and the lock order is:
&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu) --> &p->pi_lock.
For the schedule out path, the callchain is always (for all intents and
purposes; if the kernel is preemptible, kvm_sched_out() can be called from
something other than schedule(), but the beginning of the callchain will
be the same point in vcpu_block()):
vcpu_block()
|
--> schedule()
|
--> kvm_sched_out()
|
--> vmx_vcpu_put()
|
--> vmx_vcpu_pi_put()
|
--> pi_enable_wakeup_handler()
and the lock order is:
&rq->__lock --> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu)
I.e. lockdep sees AB+BC ordering for schedule out, and CA ordering for
wakeup, and complains about the A=>C versus C=>A inversion. In practice,
deadlock can't occur between schedule out and the wakeup handler as they
are mutually exclusive. The entirely of the schedule out code that runs
with the problematic scheduler locks held, does so with IRQs disabled,
i.e. can't run concurrently with the wakeup handler.
Use a subclass instead disabling lockdep entirely, and tell lockdep that
both subclasses are being acquired when loading a vCPU, as the sched_out
and sched_in paths are NOT mutually exclusive, e.g.
CPU 0 CPU 1
--------------- ---------------
vCPU0 sched_out
vCPU1 sched_in
vCPU1 sched_out vCPU 0 sched_in
where vCPU0's sched_in may race with vCPU1's sched_out, on CPU 0's wakeup
list+lock.
Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
index 840d435229a8..51116fe69a50 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu);
*/
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(raw_spinlock_t, wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock);
+#define PI_LOCK_SCHED_OUT SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING
+
static inline struct pi_desc *vcpu_to_pi_desc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
return &(to_vmx(vcpu)->pi_desc);
@@ -89,9 +91,20 @@ void vmx_vcpu_pi_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
* current pCPU if the task was migrated.
*/
if (pi_desc->nv == POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR) {
- raw_spin_lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
+ raw_spinlock_t *spinlock = &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu);
+
+ /*
+ * In addition to taking the wakeup lock for the regular/IRQ
+ * context, tell lockdep it is being taken for the "sched out"
+ * context as well. vCPU loads happens in task context, and
+ * this is taking the lock of the *previous* CPU, i.e. can race
+ * with both the scheduler and the wakeup handler.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock(spinlock);
+ spin_acquire(&spinlock->dep_map, PI_LOCK_SCHED_OUT, 0, _RET_IP_);
list_del(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list);
- raw_spin_unlock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
+ spin_release(&spinlock->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
+ raw_spin_unlock(spinlock);
}
dest = cpu_physical_id(cpu);
@@ -151,7 +164,20 @@ static void pi_enable_wakeup_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
- raw_spin_lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
+ /*
+ * Acquire the wakeup lock using the "sched out" context to workaround
+ * a lockdep false positive. When this is called, schedule() holds
+ * various per-CPU scheduler locks. When the wakeup handler runs, it
+ * holds this CPU's wakeup lock while calling try_to_wake_up(), which
+ * can eventually take the aforementioned scheduler locks, which causes
+ * lockdep to assume there is deadlock.
+ *
+ * Deadlock can't actually occur because IRQs are disabled for the
+ * entirety of the sched_out critical section, i.e. the wakeup handler
+ * can't run while the scheduler locks are held.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock_nested(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu),
+ PI_LOCK_SCHED_OUT);
list_add_tail(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list,
&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu, vcpu->cpu));
raw_spin_unlock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
--
2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-01 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-01 15:47 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: VMX: Fix lockdep false positive on PI wakeup Sean Christopherson
2025-04-01 15:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: VMX: Assert that IRQs are disabled when putting vCPU on PI wakeup list Sean Christopherson
2025-04-01 19:04 ` Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-02 2:17 ` Yan Zhao
2025-04-01 15:47 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-04-01 19:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Use separate subclasses for PI wakeup lock to squash false positive Maxim Levitsky
2025-04-02 2:54 ` Yan Zhao
2025-04-02 20:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-04-04 10:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM: VMX: Fix lockdep false positive on PI wakeup Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250401154727.835231-3-seanjc@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®