From: Wanpeng Li <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <email@example.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <email@example.com>,
LKML <firstname.lastname@example.org>, kvm <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Paolo Bonzini <email@example.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "KVM: x86: Unconditionally enable irqs in guest context"
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:41:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzXOiWV1dUQiN69TZijifBqiNoJ-b6z58yoGw51Pu1email@example.com> (raw)
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 17:35, Vitaly Kuznetsov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Looking back, I don't quite understand why we wanted to account ticks
> >> between vmexit and exiting guest context as 'guest' in the first place;
> >> to my understanging 'guest time' is time spent within VMX non-root
> >> operation, the rest is KVM overhead (system).
> > With tick-based accounting, if the tick IRQ is received after PF_VCPU is cleared
> > then that tick will be accounted to the host/system. The motivation for opening
> > an IRQ window after VM-Exit is to handle the case where the guest is constantly
> > exiting for a different reason _just_ before the tick arrives, e.g. if the guest
> > has its tick configured such that the guest and host ticks get synchronized
> > in a bad way.
> > This is a non-issue when using CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN=y, at least with a
> > stable TSC, as the accounting happens during guest_exit_irqoff() itself.
> > Accounting might be less-than-stellar if TSC is unstable, but I don't think it
> > would be as binary of a failure as tick-based accounting.
> Oh, yea, I vaguely remember we had to deal with a very similar problem
> but for userspace/kernel accounting. It was possible to observe e.g. a
> userspace task going 100% kernel while in reality it was just perfectly
> synchronized with the tick and doing a syscall just before it arrives
> (or something like that, I may be misremembering the details).
Yes. :) commit 2a42eb9594a1 ("sched/cputime: Accumulate vtime on top
of nsec clocksource")
> So depending on the frequency, it is probably possible to e.g observe
> '100% host' with tick based accounting, the guest just has to
> synchronize exiting to KVM in a way that the tick will always arrive
> past guest_exit_irqoff().
> It seems to me this is a fundamental problem in case the frequency of
> guest exits can match the frequency of the time accounting tick.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-07 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-05 19:28 [PATCH] Revert "KVM: x86: Unconditionally enable irqs in guest context" Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-01-06 0:42 ` Wanpeng Li
2021-01-06 0:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-01-06 1:35 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-01-15 3:20 ` Wanpeng Li
2021-01-19 1:27 ` Wanpeng Li
2021-01-06 10:09 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-01-06 17:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-01-07 9:33 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-01-07 9:41 ` Wanpeng Li [this message]
2021-01-12 21:43 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-01-12 22:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-01-07 10:55 ` Xinlong Lin
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).