From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@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: Wed, 12 May 2021 08:10:10 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210512111010.GA232673@fuller.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJsjeEl80KzAXNFE@t490s>
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 08:38:16PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> 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?
That would work: but vcpu->requests are nicely checked (and processed)
at vcpu_enter_guest, before guest entry. The proposed request does not
follow that pattern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-12 11:59 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 descriptor when assigning device 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
2021-05-12 11:10 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2021-05-12 14:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-12 15:34 ` Peter Xu
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
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=20210512111010.GA232673@fuller.cnet \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=pezhang@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.