linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, rkrcmar@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,kvm: move qemu/guest FPU switching out to vcpu_run
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:57:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a3c862c2-e5f9-f394-885c-10fde7904f03@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171114001223.441ea2ca@annuminas.surriel.com>

On 14.11.2017 06:12, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Currently, every time a VCPU is scheduled out, the host kernel will
> first save the guest FPU/xstate context, then load the qemu userspace
> FPU context, only to then immediately save the qemu userspace FPU
> context back to memory. When scheduling in a VCPU, the same extraneous
> FPU loads and saves are done.
> 
> This could be avoided by moving from a model where the guest FPU is
> loaded and stored with preemption disabled, to a model where the
> qemu userspace FPU is swapped out for the guest FPU context for
> the duration of the KVM_RUN ioctl.
> 
> This is done under the VCPU mutex, which is also taken when other
> tasks inspect the VCPU FPU context, so the code should already be
> safe for this change. That should come as no surprise, given that
> s390 already has this optimization.
> 
> No performance changes were detected in quick ping-pong tests on
> my 4 socket system, which is expected since an FPU+xstate load is
> on the order of 0.1us, while ping-ponging between CPUs is on the
> order of 20us, and somewhat noisy. 
> 
> There may be other tests where performance changes are noticeable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index c73e493adf07..92e66685249e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h

We should also get rid of guest_fpu_loaded now, right?


> @@ -536,7 +536,20 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>  	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_page_cache;
>  	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_page_header_cache;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * QEMU userspace and the guest each have their own FPU state.
> +	 * In vcpu_run, we switch between the user and guest FPU contexts.
> +	 * While running a VCPU, the VCPU thread will have the guest FPU
> +	 * context.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note that while the PKRU state lives inside the fpu registers,
> +	 * it is switched out separately at VMENTER and VMEXIT time. The
> +	 * "guest_fpu" state here contains the guest FPU context, with the
> +	 * host PRKU bits.
> +	 */
> +	struct fpu user_fpu;
>  	struct fpu guest_fpu;
> +
>  	u64 xcr0;
>  	u64 guest_supported_xcr0;
>  	u32 guest_xstate_size;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 03869eb7fcd6..59912b20a830 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -2917,7 +2917,6 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, idx);
>  	pagefault_enable();
>  	kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_put(vcpu);
> -	kvm_put_guest_fpu(vcpu);
>  	vcpu->arch.last_host_tsc = rdtsc();
>  }
>  
> @@ -6908,7 +6907,6 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	preempt_disable();
>  
>  	kvm_x86_ops->prepare_guest_switch(vcpu);
> -	kvm_load_guest_fpu(vcpu);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Disable IRQs before setting IN_GUEST_MODE.  Posted interrupt
> @@ -7095,6 +7093,8 @@ static int vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  	vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>  
> +	kvm_load_guest_fpu(vcpu);
> +
>  	for (;;) {
>  		if (kvm_vcpu_running(vcpu)) {
>  			r = vcpu_enter_guest(vcpu);
> @@ -7132,6 +7132,8 @@ static int vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	kvm_put_guest_fpu(vcpu);
> +
>  	srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>  
>  	return r;
> @@ -7663,32 +7665,25 @@ static void fx_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	vcpu->arch.cr0 |= X86_CR0_ET;
>  }
>  
> +/* Swap (qemu) user FPU context for the guest FPU context. */
>  void kvm_load_guest_fpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> -	if (vcpu->guest_fpu_loaded)
> -		return;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Restore all possible states in the guest,
> -	 * and assume host would use all available bits.
> -	 * Guest xcr0 would be loaded later.
> -	 */
> -	vcpu->guest_fpu_loaded = 1;
> -	__kernel_fpu_begin();
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	copy_fpregs_to_fpstate(&vcpu->arch.user_fpu);
>  	/* PKRU is separately restored in kvm_x86_ops->run.  */
>  	__copy_kernel_to_fpregs(&vcpu->arch.guest_fpu.state,
>  				~XFEATURE_MASK_PKRU);
> +	preempt_enable();
>  	trace_kvm_fpu(1);
>  }
>  
> +/* When vcpu_run ends, restore user space FPU context. */
>  void kvm_put_guest_fpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> -	if (!vcpu->guest_fpu_loaded)
> -		return;
> -
> -	vcpu->guest_fpu_loaded = 0;
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	copy_fpregs_to_fpstate(&vcpu->arch.guest_fpu);
> -	__kernel_fpu_end();
> +	copy_kernel_to_fpregs(&vcpu->arch.user_fpu.state);
> +	preempt_enable();
>  	++vcpu->stat.fpu_reload;
>  	trace_kvm_fpu(0);
>  }
> 

emulator_get_fpu() does a kvm_load_guest_fpu(). Doesn't that mean that
this is now not needed anymore? (at least when emulator code is called
from inside the loop?)

Also, what about preempt_diable() at that point, still needed?


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-14 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-14  5:12 [PATCH] x86,kvm: move qemu/guest FPU switching out to vcpu_run Rik van Riel
2017-11-14 16:57 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2017-11-14 18:07   ` Rik van Riel
2017-11-14 18:09     ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-11-14 19:40     ` David Hildenbrand
2017-11-14 21:11       ` Rik van Riel
2017-11-15  8:34       ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-11-15  9:23         ` David Hildenbrand
2017-11-15 14:50         ` Rik van Riel
2017-11-15 15:20           ` David Hildenbrand
2017-12-04  2:15 ` Wanpeng Li
2017-12-05 17:09   ` Radim Krcmar
2017-12-06  2:48     ` Wanpeng Li

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=a3c862c2-e5f9-f394-885c-10fde7904f03@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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
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).