All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm/arm64: KVM: Properly account for guest CPU time
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:34:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5568E987.5010702@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432838950-28774-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>

On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
> interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
> unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
> interrupts occurring while the guest is running doesn't properly notice
> that the time since the last tick was spent in the guest.
> 
> Inspired by the comment in the x86 code, move the kvm_guest_exit() call
> below the local_irq_enable() call and change __kvm_guest_exit() to
> kvm_guest_exit(), because we are now calling this function with
> interrupts enabled.  We have to now explicitly disable preemption and
> not enable preemption before we've called kvm_guest_exit(), since
> otherwise we could be preempted and everything happening before we
> eventually get scheduled again would be accounted for as guest time.
> 
> At the same time, move the trace_kvm_exit() call outside of the atomic
> section, since there is no reason for us to do that with interrupts
> disabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on kvm/queue, because it has the kvm_guest_enter/exit
> rework recently posted by Christian Borntraeger.  I hope I got the logic
> of this right, there were 2 slightly worrying facts about this:
> 
> First, we now enable and disable and enable interrupts on each exit
> path, but I couldn't see any performance overhead on hackbench - yes the
> only benchmark we care about.
> 
> Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
> kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't understand how
> guest CPU time accounting works on those architectures.
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  - Tweak comment and commit text based on Marc's feedback.
>  - Explicitly disable preemption and enable it only after kvm_guest_exit().
> 
>  arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> index e41cb11..fe8028d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -532,6 +532,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
>  		kvm_timer_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
>  
> +		preempt_disable();
>  		local_irq_disable();
>  
>  		/*
> @@ -544,6 +545,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  
>  		if (ret <= 0 || need_new_vmid_gen(vcpu->kvm)) {
>  			local_irq_enable();
> +			preempt_enable();
>  			kvm_timer_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  			kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  			continue;
> @@ -559,8 +561,10 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		ret = kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_vcpu_run, vcpu);
>  
>  		vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> -		__kvm_guest_exit();
> -		trace_kvm_exit(kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu), *vcpu_pc(vcpu));
> +		/*
> +		 * Back from guest
> +		 *************************************************************/
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * We may have taken a host interrupt in HYP mode (ie
>  		 * while executing the guest). This interrupt is still
> @@ -574,8 +578,17 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		local_irq_enable();
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * Back from guest
> -		 *************************************************************/
> +		 * We do local_irq_enable() before calling kvm_guest_exit() so
> +		 * that if a timer interrupt hits while running the guest we
> +		 * account that tick as being spent in the guest.  We enable
> +		 * preemption after calling kvm_guest_exit() so that if we get
> +		 * preempted we make sure ticks after that is not counted as
> +		 * guest time.
> +		 */
> +		kvm_guest_exit();
> +		trace_kvm_exit(kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu), *vcpu_pc(vcpu));
> +		preempt_enable();
> +
>  
>  		kvm_timer_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  		kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> 

Hi Christoffer,
 so currently we take a snap shot when we enter the guest
(tsk->vtime_snap) and upon exit add the time we spent in
the guest and update accrued time, which appears correct.

With this patch it appears that interrupts running
in host mode are accrued to Guest time, and additional preemption
latency is added.

Thanks,
- Mario

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: m.smarduch@samsung.com (Mario Smarduch)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] arm/arm64: KVM: Properly account for guest CPU time
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:34:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5568E987.5010702@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432838950-28774-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>

On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
> interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
> unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
> interrupts occurring while the guest is running doesn't properly notice
> that the time since the last tick was spent in the guest.
> 
> Inspired by the comment in the x86 code, move the kvm_guest_exit() call
> below the local_irq_enable() call and change __kvm_guest_exit() to
> kvm_guest_exit(), because we are now calling this function with
> interrupts enabled.  We have to now explicitly disable preemption and
> not enable preemption before we've called kvm_guest_exit(), since
> otherwise we could be preempted and everything happening before we
> eventually get scheduled again would be accounted for as guest time.
> 
> At the same time, move the trace_kvm_exit() call outside of the atomic
> section, since there is no reason for us to do that with interrupts
> disabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on kvm/queue, because it has the kvm_guest_enter/exit
> rework recently posted by Christian Borntraeger.  I hope I got the logic
> of this right, there were 2 slightly worrying facts about this:
> 
> First, we now enable and disable and enable interrupts on each exit
> path, but I couldn't see any performance overhead on hackbench - yes the
> only benchmark we care about.
> 
> Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
> kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't understand how
> guest CPU time accounting works on those architectures.
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  - Tweak comment and commit text based on Marc's feedback.
>  - Explicitly disable preemption and enable it only after kvm_guest_exit().
> 
>  arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> index e41cb11..fe8028d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -532,6 +532,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
>  		kvm_timer_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
>  
> +		preempt_disable();
>  		local_irq_disable();
>  
>  		/*
> @@ -544,6 +545,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  
>  		if (ret <= 0 || need_new_vmid_gen(vcpu->kvm)) {
>  			local_irq_enable();
> +			preempt_enable();
>  			kvm_timer_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  			kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  			continue;
> @@ -559,8 +561,10 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		ret = kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_vcpu_run, vcpu);
>  
>  		vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> -		__kvm_guest_exit();
> -		trace_kvm_exit(kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu), *vcpu_pc(vcpu));
> +		/*
> +		 * Back from guest
> +		 *************************************************************/
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * We may have taken a host interrupt in HYP mode (ie
>  		 * while executing the guest). This interrupt is still
> @@ -574,8 +578,17 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  		local_irq_enable();
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * Back from guest
> -		 *************************************************************/
> +		 * We do local_irq_enable() before calling kvm_guest_exit() so
> +		 * that if a timer interrupt hits while running the guest we
> +		 * account that tick as being spent in the guest.  We enable
> +		 * preemption after calling kvm_guest_exit() so that if we get
> +		 * preempted we make sure ticks after that is not counted as
> +		 * guest time.
> +		 */
> +		kvm_guest_exit();
> +		trace_kvm_exit(kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu), *vcpu_pc(vcpu));
> +		preempt_enable();
> +
>  
>  		kvm_timer_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
>  		kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> 

Hi Christoffer,
 so currently we take a snap shot when we enter the guest
(tsk->vtime_snap) and upon exit add the time we spent in
the guest and update accrued time, which appears correct.

With this patch it appears that interrupts running
in host mode are accrued to Guest time, and additional preemption
latency is added.

Thanks,
- Mario

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-29 22:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-28 18:49 [PATCH v2] arm/arm64: KVM: Properly account for guest CPU time Christoffer Dall
2015-05-28 18:49 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-05-29 22:34 ` Mario Smarduch [this message]
2015-05-29 22:34   ` Mario Smarduch
2015-05-31  6:59   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-05-31  6:59     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01 15:48     ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-01 15:48       ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-02  9:27       ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-02  9:27         ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-02 11:55         ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-02 11:55           ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-05 12:24         ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-05 12:24           ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-08 11:35           ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-08 11:35             ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-09 23:04             ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-09 23:04               ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-01  7:47 ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01  7:47   ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01  9:08   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01  9:08     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01  9:21     ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01  9:21       ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01 13:35       ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01 13:35         ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01 13:37         ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01 13:37           ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-02  9:28           ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-02  9:28             ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-01 11:34   ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-06-01 11:34     ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-06-01 11:42     ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01 11:42       ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-06-01 11:52       ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-06-01 11:52         ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-06-08 17:50 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-08 17:50   ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-09 14:43   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-09 14:43     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-09 16:39     ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-09 16:39       ` Marc Zyngier

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=5568E987.5010702@samsung.com \
    --to=m.smarduch@samsung.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.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.