kvm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	w90p710@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "KVM: x86: Unconditionally enable irqs in guest context"
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:04:38 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X/4c9skP3rOqsWHW@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb41e24f-a5e3-8319-d25b-e0fe6b902a2b@redhat.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 1/7/21 4:33 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Just to make sure that I am understanding things correctly.
> There are two issues:
> 1. The first issue is with the tick IRQs that arrive after PF_VCPU is
>    cleared as they are then accounted into the system context atleast on
>    the setup where CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN is not enabled. With the
>    patch "KVM: x86: Unconditionally enable irqs in guest context", we are
>    atleast taking care of the scenario where the guest context is exiting
>    constantly just before the arrival of the tick.


> 2. The second issue that Sean mentioned was introduced because of moving
>    guest_exit_irqoff() closer to VM-exit. Due to this change, any ticks that
>    happen after IRQs are disabled are incorrectly accounted into the system
>    context. This is because we exit the guest context early without
>    ensuring if the required guest states to handle IRQs are restored.


> So, the increase in the system time (reported by cpuacct.stats) that I was
> observing is not entirely correct after all.

It's correct, but iff CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN=y, as that doesn't rely on
ticks and so closer to VM-Enter is better.  The problem is that it completely
breaks CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN=n (#2 above) because KVM will never
service an IRQ, ticks included, with PF_VCPU set.

> Am I missing anything here?

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-12 22:06 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
2021-01-12 21:43       ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-01-12 22:04         ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-01-07 10:55     ` Xinlong Lin

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=X/4c9skP3rOqsWHW@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nitesh@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=w90p710@gmail.com \


* 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).