From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, Pei Zhang <pezhang@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] KVM: VMX: update vcpu posted-interrupt descriptor when assigning device Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 20:38:16 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YJsjeEl80KzAXNFE@t490s> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210512000259.GA192145@fuller.cnet> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:02:59PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 08:51:24PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 05:35:41PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:18:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:19:56PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:51:57AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:39:11AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:08:31PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wondering whether we should add a pi_test_on() check in kvm_vcpu_has_events() > > > > > > > > > somehow, so that even without customized ->vcpu_check_block we should be able > > > > > > > > > to break the block loop (as kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable will return true properly)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > int ret = -EINTR; > > > > > > > > int idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) { > > > > > > > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu); <--- > > > > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't want to unhalt the vcpu. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate? It's not obvious to me why we can't do that if > > > > > > > pi_test_on() returns true.. we have pending post interrupts anyways, so > > > > > > > shouldn't we stop halting? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > pi_test_on() only returns true when an interrupt is signalled by the > > > > > > device. But the sequence of events is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. pCPU idles without notification vector configured to wakeup vector. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. PCI device is hotplugged, assigned device count increases from 0 to 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > <arbitrary amount of time> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. device generates interrupt, sets ON bit to true in the posted > > > > > > interrupt descriptor. > > > > > > > > > > > > We want to exit kvm_vcpu_block after 2, but before 3 (where ON bit > > > > > > is not set). > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes.. thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Besides the current approach, I'm thinking maybe it'll be cleaner/less LOC to > > > > > define a KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK to replace the pre_block hook (in x86's kvm_host.h): > > > > > > > > > > #define KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK KVM_ARCH_REQ(31) > > > > > > > > > > We can set it in vmx_pi_start_assignment(), then check+clear it in > > > > > kvm_vcpu_has_events() (or make it a bool in kvm_vcpu struct?). > > > > > > > > Can't check it in kvm_vcpu_has_events() because that will set > > > > KVM_REQ_UNHALT (which we don't want). > > > > > > I thought it was okay to break the guest HLT? > > > > Intel: > > > > "HLT-HALT > > > > Description > > > > Stops instruction execution and places the processor in a HALT state. An enabled interrupt (including NMI and > > SMI), a debug exception, the BINIT# signal, the INIT# signal, or the RESET# signal will resume execution. If an > > interrupt (including NMI) is used to resume execution after a HLT instruction, the saved instruction pointer > > (CS:EIP) points to the instruction following the HLT instruction." > > > > AMD: > > > > "6.5 Processor Halt > > The processor halt instruction (HLT) halts instruction execution, leaving the processor in the halt state. > > No registers or machine state are modified as a result of executing the HLT instruction. The processor > > remains in the halt state until one of the following occurs: > > • A non-maskable interrupt (NMI). > > • An enabled, maskable interrupt (INTR). > > • Processor reset (RESET). > > • Processor initialization (INIT). > > • System-management interrupt (SMI)." > > > > The KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK patch will resume execution even any such event > > even without any such event > > > occuring. So the behaviour would be different from baremetal. > What if we move that kvm_check_request() into kvm_vcpu_check_block()? ---8<--- diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index 739e1bd59e8a9..e6fee59b5dab6 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c @@ -11177,9 +11177,6 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) static_call(kvm_x86_smi_allowed)(vcpu, false))) return true; - if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK, vcpu)) - return true; - if (kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) && (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) || kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt(vcpu))) diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index f68035355c08a..fc5f6bffff7fc 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -2925,6 +2925,10 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu); goto out; } +#ifdef CONFIG_X86 + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK, vcpu)) + return true; +#endif if (kvm_cpu_has_pending_timer(vcpu)) goto out; if (signal_pending(current)) ---8<--- (The CONFIG_X86 is ugly indeed.. but just to show what I meant, e.g. it can be a boolean too I think) Would this work? Thanks, -- Peter Xu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-12 0:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-07 13:06 [patch 0/4] VMX: configure posted interrupt " Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 13:06 ` [patch 1/4] KVM: x86: add start_assignment hook to kvm_x86_ops Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 19:16 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-10 17:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 13:06 ` [patch 2/4] KVM: add arch specific vcpu_check_block callback Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 13:06 ` [patch 3/4] KVM: x86: implement kvm_arch_vcpu_check_block callback Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 13:06 ` [patch 4/4] KVM: VMX: update vcpu posted-interrupt descriptor when assigning device Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-07 17:22 ` Sean Christopherson 2021-05-07 19:29 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-07 22:08 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-11 14:39 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-11 14:51 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-11 17:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-11 21:35 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-11 23:51 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-12 0:02 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-12 0:38 ` Peter Xu [this message] 2021-05-12 11:10 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-12 14:41 ` Sean Christopherson 2021-05-12 15:34 ` Peter Xu 2021-05-10 17:26 [patch 0/4] VMX: configure posted interrupt descriptor when assigning device (v3) Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-10 17:26 ` [patch 4/4] KVM: VMX: update vcpu posted-interrupt descriptor when assigning device Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-24 15:55 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-05-24 17:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-25 11:58 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-05-11 23:57 [patch 0/4] VMX: configure posted interrupt descriptor when assigning device (v4) Marcelo Tosatti 2021-05-11 23:57 ` [patch 4/4] KVM: VMX: update vcpu posted-interrupt descriptor when assigning device Marcelo Tosatti
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=YJsjeEl80KzAXNFE@t490s \ --to=peterx@redhat.com \ --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=pezhang@redhat.com \ --cc=seanjc@google.com \ --subject='Re: [patch 4/4] KVM: VMX: update vcpu posted-interrupt descriptor when assigning device' \ /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
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).