From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:50:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-8-seanjc@google.com>
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:55:21 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> Invoke the arch hooks for block+unblock if and only if KVM actually
> attempts to block the vCPU. The only non-nop implementation is on arm64,
> and if halt-polling is successful, there is no need for arm64 to put/load
> the vGIC as KVM hasn't relinquished control of the vCPU in any way.
This doesn't mean that there is no requirement for any state
change. The put/load on GICv4 is crucial for performance, and the VMCR
resync is a correctness requirement.
>
> The primary motivation is to allow future cleanup to split out "block"
> from "halt", but this is also likely a small performance boost on arm64
> when halt-polling is successful.
>
> Adjust the post-block path to update "cur" after unblocking, i.e. include
> vGIC load time in halt_wait_ns and halt_wait_hist, so that the behavior
> is consistent. Moving just the pre-block arch hook would result in only
> the vGIC put latency being included in the halt_wait stats. There is no
> obvious evidence that one way or the other is correct, so just ensure KVM
> is consistent.
This effectively reverts 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call
kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early into the blocking sequence"), which was a
huge gain on arm64, not to mention a correctness fix.
Without this, a GICv4 machine will always pay for the full poll
penalty, going into schedule(), and only then get a doorbell interrupt
signalling telling the kernel that there was an interrupt.
On a non-GICv4 machine, it means that interrupts injected by another
thread during the pooling will be evaluated with an outdated priority
mask, which can result in either a spurious wake-up or a missed
wake-up.
If it means introducing a new set of {pre,post}-poll arch-specific
hooks, so be it. But I don't think this change is acceptable as is.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-25 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-25 0:55 [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 01/14] KVM: s390: Ensure kvm_arch_no_poll() is read once when blocking vCPU Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 6:54 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 02/14] KVM: Update halt-polling stats if and only if halt-polling was attempted Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 18:57 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 03/14] KVM: Refactor and document halt-polling stats update helper Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 19:01 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 04/14] KVM: Reconcile discrepancies in halt-polling stats Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 21:26 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 05/14] KVM: s390: Clear valid_wakeup in kvm_s390_handle_wait(), not in arch hook Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 6:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 06/14] KVM: Drop obsolete kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 6:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 21:28 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25 9:50 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-09-26 6:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-26 9:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-27 17:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 9:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-28 16:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-30 9:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 08/14] KVM: x86: Tweak halt emulation helper names to free up kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 21:59 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 09/14] KVM: Rename kvm_vcpu_block() => kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 7:06 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 22:01 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 10/14] KVM: Split out a kvm_vcpu_block() helper from kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 7:41 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 22:03 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 11/14] KVM: stats: Add stat to detect if vcpu is currently blocking Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:04 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating halt-polling stop/deadline Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:08 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 13/14] KVM: x86: Directly block (instead of "halting") UNINITIALIZED vCPUs Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:12 ` David Matlack
2021-09-25 0:55 ` [PATCH 14/14] KVM: x86: Invoke kvm_vcpu_block() directly for non-HALTED wait states Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:14 ` David Matlack
2021-09-27 7:22 ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 14:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 15:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:16 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 16:58 ` David Matlack
2021-09-29 6:56 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 17:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 17:33 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-15 3:28 ` wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-16 17:19 ` David Matlack
2022-11-18 2:29 ` wangyanan (Y)
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=878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).