[v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Tiejun Chen]

We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.

Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
 arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c
index 27a4b28..33b14e9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c
@@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ int kvmppc_booke_emulate_mtspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int sprn, ulong spr_val)
 		break;
 	case SPRN_IVOR3:
 		vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE] = spr_val;
+#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
+		mtspr(SPRN_GIVOR3, spr_val);
+#endif
 		break;
 	case SPRN_IVOR4:
 		vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_EXTERNAL] = spr_val;
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
index c3bdc0a..acf546a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 
 	mtspr(SPRN_GIVPR, vcpu->arch.ivpr);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GIVOR2, vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE]);
+	mtspr(SPRN_GIVOR3, vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE]);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GIVOR8, vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL]);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GSPRG0, (unsigned long)vcpu->arch.shared->sprg0);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GSPRG1, (unsigned long)vcpu->arch.shared->sprg1);
@@ -185,7 +186,7 @@ int kvmppc_core_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
 
 	vcpu->arch.shadow_epcr = SPRN_EPCR_DSIGS | SPRN_EPCR_DGTMI | \
-				 SPRN_EPCR_DUVD;
+				 SPRN_EPCR_DUVD | SPRN_EPCR_ISIGS;
 #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
 	vcpu->arch.shadow_epcr |= SPRN_EPCR_ICM;
 #endif
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Scott Wood]

On 05/07/2013 06:06:30 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
>  arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Are you seeing a real performance improvement from this?  This will =20
interfere somewhat with using the VF bit, if we were to ever do so, =20
since VF only affects data accesses (and so the guest would see an ISI =20
storm rather than a machine check if it tries to execute from such an =20
address).

-Scott=

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[tiejun.chen]

On 05/08/2013 07:40 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 06:06:30 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>> We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Are you seeing a real performance improvement from this?  This will interfere

No. But after we reduce the exit to host, shouldn't this improve performance?

> somewhat with using the VF bit, if we were to ever do so, since VF only affects

Sorry, what is the VF you said?

Tiejun

RE: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008]
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Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[tiejun.chen]

On 05/08/2013 05:20 PM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org] On
>> Behalf Of tiejun.chen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:54 AM
>> To: Wood Scott-B07421
>> Cc: agraf@suse.de; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org;
>> linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to
>> Guest
>>
>> On 05/08/2013 07:40 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 05/07/2013 06:06:30 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>>> We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
>>>>   arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
>>>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Are you seeing a real performance improvement from this?  This will
>> interfere
>>
>> No. But after we reduce the exit to host, shouldn't this improve
>> performance?
>
> We lose some flexibility for this so it make sense only if we gain
> measurable improvements.

Sounds we have much more works to do.

>
>>
>>> somewhat with using the VF bit, if we were to ever do so, since VF only
>> affects
>>
>> Sorry, what is the VF you said?
>
> VF stands for virtualization fault see MAS8[VF] and we may use it for virtualized

I almost forget this point :)

> MMIO. The hypervisor should deny execute access on pages marked with VF. Accordingly
> in this case guest ISI exceptions should be handled by the hypervisor.

Thanks for your information.

Tiejun

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Scott Wood]

On 05/07/2013 08:53:50 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 07:40 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 06:06:30 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>> We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.
>>>=20
>>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
>>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
>>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>=20
>> Are you seeing a real performance improvement from this?  This will =20
>> interfere
>=20
> No. But after we reduce the exit to host, shouldn't this improve =20
> performance?

Not if ISIs are too rare to matter.

-Scott=

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[tiejun.chen]

On 05/08/2013 05:28 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 05:20 PM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org] On
>>> Behalf Of tiejun.chen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:54 AM
>>> To: Wood Scott-B07421
>>> Cc: agraf@suse.de; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org;
>>> linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>>> Subject: Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to
>>> Guest
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2013 07:40 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> On 05/07/2013 06:06:30 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>>>> We also can direct ISI exception to Guest like DSI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_emulate.c |    3 +++
>>>>>   arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c        |    3 ++-
>>>>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> Are you seeing a real performance improvement from this?  This will
>>> interfere
>>>
>>> No. But after we reduce the exit to host, shouldn't this improve
>>> performance?
>>
>> We lose some flexibility for this so it make sense only if we gain
>> measurable improvements.
>
> Sounds we have much more works to do.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> somewhat with using the VF bit, if we were to ever do so, since VF only
>>> affects
>>>
>>> Sorry, what is the VF you said?
>>
>> VF stands for virtualization fault see MAS8[VF] and we may use it for virtualized
>
> I almost forget this point :)

Looks KVM PPC have no this mechanism currently since I don't find MAS8_VF is 
used in kernel, right?

If I'm missing something please correct me.

Tiejun

>
>> MMIO. The hypervisor should deny execute access on pages marked with VF.
>> Accordingly
>> in this case guest ISI exceptions should be handled by the hypervisor.
>

RE: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008]

PiA+PiBWRiBzdGFuZHMgZm9yIHZpcnR1YWxpemF0aW9uIGZhdWx0IHNlZSBNQVM4W1ZGXSBhbmQg
d2UgbWF5IHVzZSBpdCBmb3INCj4gdmlydHVhbGl6ZWQNCj4gDQo+IExvb2tzIEtWTSBQUEMgaGF2
ZSBubyB0aGlzIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBjdXJyZW50bHkgc2luY2UgSSBkb24ndCBmaW5kIE1BUzhfVkYN
Cj4gaXMNCj4gdXNlZCBpbiBrZXJuZWwsIHJpZ2h0Pw0KDQpZZXMgYnV0ICd3ZSBtYXkgdXNlIGl0
JyBpbiB0aGUgZmVhdHVyZSwgSSBoYXZlIGEgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBQT0Mgd2l0aCBWRi4NCk5vdyB3
ZSBjYXB0dXJlIHZpcnR1YWxpemVkIE1NSU8gYWNjZXNzZXMgYXMgVExCIG1pc3NlcyAod2UgZG9u
J3Qgd3JpdGUNCmludG8gSFcgVExCIGd1ZXN0IHRyYW5zbGF0aW9uIG91dHNpZGUgdmlzaWJsZSBt
ZW1zbG90cykuDQoNCi1NaWtlDQo=

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[tiejun.chen]

On 05/09/2013 07:34 PM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>>>> VF stands for virtualization fault see MAS8[VF] and we may use it for
>> virtualized
>>
>> Looks KVM PPC have no this mechanism currently since I don't find MAS8_VF
>> is
>> used in kernel, right?
>
> Yes but 'we may use it' in the feature, I have a functional POC with VF.

Any IO performance to be improved with this POC?

> Now we capture virtualized MMIO accesses as TLB misses (we don't write
> into HW TLB guest translation outside visible memslots).

Yes.

Tiejun

RE: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008]
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Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Alexander Graf]

On 09.05.2013, at 14:36, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:40 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; agraf@suse.de; =
kvm-
>> ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI =
exception to
>> Guest
>>=20
>> On 05/09/2013 07:34 PM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>>>>>> VF stands for virtualization fault see MAS8[VF] and we may use it
>> for
>>>> virtualized
>>>>=20
>>>> Looks KVM PPC have no this mechanism currently since I don't find
>> MAS8_VF
>>>> is
>>>> used in kernel, right?
>>>=20
>>> Yes but 'we may use it' in the feature, I have a functional POC with
>> VF.
>>=20
>> Any IO performance to be improved with this POC?
>=20
> VF approach puts more stress on HW TLB so I did not advance with =
performance
> measurements though it may worth to do it.

Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks on =
both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with in-kernel =
MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth going =
towards?


Thanks!

Alex

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Scott Wood]

On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks =20
> on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with =20
> in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth =20
> going towards?

Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least =20
salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at =20
the moment.  If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo =20
the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's =20
any real benefit in the first place.

FWIW, I doubt that the "more stress on HW TLB" will be significant.

-Scott=

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[Alexander Graf]

Am 10.05.2013 um 21:22 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:

> On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks on b=
oth guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with in-kernel MMIO)=
, so that we can decide on the direction that's worth going towards?
>=20
> Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least salv=
aging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at the moment.=
  If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo the direct ISI ch=
ange, but it would still be nice to know if there's any real benefit in the f=
irst place.

Mike sounded like he had an almost working poc, which is good enough to coll=
ect rough numbers.

And yes, changes like these should always get at least basic performance num=
bers along with them, regardless of drawbacks.


Alex

>=20
> FWIW, I doubt that the "more stress on HW TLB" will be significant.
>=20
> -Scott

Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest

[tiejun.chen]

On 05/11/2013 03:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.05.2013 um 21:22 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:
>
>> On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth going towards?
>>
>> Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at the moment.  If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's any real benefit in the first place.
>
> Mike sounded like he had an almost working poc, which is good enough to collect rough numbers.

Which can the test case be adopted?

Mike,

If you already have a good case for your poc, please share that with me. Then 
I'd like to run that.

Tiejun

>
> And yes, changes like these should always get at least basic performance numbers along with them, regardless of drawbacks.
>
>
> Alex
>
>>
>> FWIW, I doubt that the "more stress on HW TLB" will be significant.
>>
>> -Scott
>