All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, gleb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: vmx: Allow the guest to run with dirty debug registers
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:25:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <530F2098.1040100@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1393429753-20857-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>

On 2014-02-26 16:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When not running in guest-debug mode (i.e. the guest controls the debug
> registers, having to take an exit for each DR access is a waste of time.
> If the guest gets into a state where each context switch causes DR to be
> saved and restored, this can take away as much as 40% of the execution
> time from the guest.
> 
> If the guest is running with vcpu->arch.db == vcpu->arch.eff_db, we
> can let it write freely to the debug registers and reload them on the
> next exit.  We still need to exit on the first access, so that the
> KVM_DEBUGREG_WONT_EXIT flag is set in switch_db_regs; after that, further
> accesses to the debug registers will not cause a vmexit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 6e57e1434cf3..71c57ec48d8f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -2851,7 +2851,7 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
>  		      vmx_capability.ept, vmx_capability.vpid);
>  	}
>  
> -	min = 0;
> +	min = VM_EXIT_SAVE_DEBUG_CONTROLS;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  	min |= VM_EXIT_HOST_ADDR_SPACE_SIZE;
>  #endif
> @@ -5121,6 +5121,22 @@ static int handle_dr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	if (vcpu->guest_debug == 0) {
> +		u32 cpu_based_vm_exec_control;
> +
> +		cpu_based_vm_exec_control = vmcs_read32(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
> +		cpu_based_vm_exec_control &= ~CPU_BASED_MOV_DR_EXITING;
> +		vmcs_write32(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, cpu_based_vm_exec_control);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * No more DR vmexits; force a reload of the debug registers
> +		 * and reenter on this instruction.  The next vmexit will
> +		 * retrieve the full state of the debug registers.
> +		 */
> +		vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs |= KVM_DEBUGREG_WONT_EXIT;
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +
>  	exit_qualification = vmcs_readl(EXIT_QUALIFICATION);
>  	dr = exit_qualification & DEBUG_REG_ACCESS_NUM;
>  	reg = DEBUG_REG_ACCESS_REG(exit_qualification);
> @@ -5147,6 +5163,18 @@ static void vmx_set_dr6(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long val)
>  {
>  }
>  
> +static u64 vmx_get_dr7(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	/* DRs are being synced back to vcpu->arch, exit on DR access.  */
> +	u32 cpu_based_vm_exec_control;
> +
> +	cpu_based_vm_exec_control = vmcs_read32(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
> +	cpu_based_vm_exec_control |= CPU_BASED_MOV_DR_EXITING;
> +	vmcs_write32(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, cpu_based_vm_exec_control);
> +
> +	return vmcs_readl(GUEST_DR7);
> +}

The general idea looks ok (It passes x86/debug.flat unit test, right?).
But this side effect of get_dr7 seems a bit ugly to me. Also the
imbalanced updates of arch.switch_db_regs: KVM_DEBUGREG_WONT_EXIT is set
by the vendor code but cleared in a common x86 path. Can't you make this
more regular and explicit?

Jan

> +
>  static void vmx_set_dr7(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long val)
>  {
>  	vmcs_writel(GUEST_DR7, val);
> @@ -8606,6 +8634,7 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops = {
>  	.set_gdt = vmx_set_gdt,
>  	.get_dr6 = vmx_get_dr6,
>  	.set_dr6 = vmx_set_dr6,
> +	.get_dr7 = vmx_get_dr7,
>  	.set_dr7 = vmx_set_dr7,
>  	.cache_reg = vmx_cache_reg,
>  	.get_rflags = vmx_get_rflags,
> 

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-27 11:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-26 15:49 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: Let the guest write to multiple debug registers with one vmexit Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-26 15:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: vmx: we do rely on loading DR7 on entry Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-26 15:49 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: change vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs to a bit mask Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-26 15:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: Allow the guest to run with dirty debug registers Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-26 15:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: vmx: " Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-27 11:25   ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2014-02-27 12:54     ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-26 17:00 ` [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: Let the guest write to multiple debug registers with one vmexit Alex Williamson

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=530F2098.1040100@siemens.com \
    --to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=gleb@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.