From: Sean Christopherson <email@example.com>
To: Nitesh Narayan Lal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <email@example.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 1/7/21 4:33 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov 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).
> > 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?
next prev parent 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
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).