From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934091AbdIYJNY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 25 Sep 2017 05:13:24 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:40524 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932627AbdIYJNW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 25 Sep 2017 05:13:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:13:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86: kvm guest side support for KVM_HC_RT_PRIO
 hypercall
Message-ID: <20170925091316.bnwpiscs2bvpdxk5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170921113835.031375194@redhat.com>
 <20170922011039.GB20133@amt.cnet>
 <20170922100004.ydmaxvgpc2zx7j25@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170922105609.deln6kylvvpaijg7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170922123305.GB29608@amt.cnet>
 <20170922125556.cyzybj6c7jqypbmo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <951aaa3f-b20d-6f67-9454-f193f4445fc7@redhat.com>
 <20170923134114.qdfdegrd6afqrkut@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <855950672.7912001.1506258344142.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <20170925025751.GB30813@amt.cnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170925025751.GB30813@amt.cnet>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:57:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> I think you are missing the following point:
> 
> "vcpu0 can be interrupted when its not in a spinlock protected section, 
> otherwise it can't."
> 
> So you _have_ to communicate to the host when the guest enters/leaves a
> critical section.
> 
> So this point of "everything needs to be RT and the priorities must be
> designed carefully", is this: 
> 
> 	WHEN in spinlock protected section (more specifically, when 
> 	spinlock protected section _shared with realtime vcpus_),
> 
> 	priority of vcpu0 > priority of emulator thread
> 
> 	OTHERWISE
> 
> 	priority of vcpu0 < priority of emulator thread.
> 
> (*)
> 
> So emulator thread can interrupt and inject interrupts to vcpu0.

spinlock protected regions are not everything. What about lock-free
constructs where CPU's spin-wait on one another (there's plenty).

And I'm clearly ignorant of how this emulation thread works, but why
would it run for a long time? Either it is needed for forward progress
of the VCPU or its not. If its not, it shouldn't run.