From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, vkuznets@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: x86: lapic does not have to process INIT if it is blocked
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 17:11:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <226aca0a2cc95f57364f330793a2f13446fcf7a0.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YvwxJzHC5xYnc7CJ@google.com>
On Wed, 2022-08-17 at 00:07 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Do not return true from kvm_apic_has_events, and consequently from
> > kvm_vcpu_has_events, if the vCPU is not going to process an INIT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c | 2 +-
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 2 +-
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 +++++
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.h | 5 -----
> > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 293ff678fff5..1ce4ebc41118 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -2042,6 +2042,7 @@ void __user *__x86_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, int id, gpa_t gpa,
> > u32 size);
> > bool kvm_vcpu_is_reset_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > bool kvm_vcpu_is_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > +bool kvm_vcpu_latch_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >
> > bool kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq,
> > struct kvm_vcpu **dest_vcpu);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> > index e1bb6218bb96..177555eea54e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> > @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@
> > #include <linux/mm.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/bitops.h>
> > -#include "irq.h"
> > +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >
> > -#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> > +#include "irq.h"
> > #include "trace.h"
> >
> > #define pr_pic_unimpl(fmt, ...) \
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > index 117a46df5cc1..12577ddccdfc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > static inline bool kvm_apic_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > - return lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) && vcpu->arch.apic->pending_events;
> > + return lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) && vcpu->arch.apic->pending_events && !kvm_vcpu_latch_init(vcpu);
>
> Blech, the kvm_apic_has_events() name is awful (as is pending_events), e.g. it
> really should be kvm_apic_has_pending_sipi_or_init().
110% agree.
>
> To avoid the odd kvm_vcpu_latch_init() declaration and the long line above, what
> if we open code this in kvm_vcpu_has_events() like we do for NMI, SMI, etc...?
>
> And as follow-up, I would love to rename kvm_vcpu_latch_init() => kvm_vcpu_init_blocked(),
> kvm_apic_has_events(), and pending_events.
>
> E.g. for this patch just do:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 9f11b505cbee..559900736a71 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -12533,7 +12533,8 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (!list_empty_careful(&vcpu->async_pf.done))
> return true;
>
> - if (kvm_apic_has_events(vcpu))
> + /* comment explaning that SIPIs are dropped in this case. */
> + if (kvm_apic_has_events(vcpu) && !kvm_vcpu_latch_init(vcpu))
> return true;
I personally don't know if I prefer this or the original patch.
>
> if (vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted)
>
While reviwing this, I noticed that we have this code:
static bool svm_apic_init_signal_blocked(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
/*
* TODO: Last condition latch INIT signals on vCPU when
* vCPU is in guest-mode and vmcb12 defines intercept on INIT.
* To properly emulate the INIT intercept,
* svm_check_nested_events() should call nested_svm_vmexit()
* if an INIT signal is pending.
*/
return !gif_set(svm) ||
(vmcb_is_intercept(&svm->vmcb->control, INTERCEPT_INIT));
}
Is this workaround still needed? svm_check_nested_events does check the apic's INIT/SIPI status.
Currently the '.apic_init_signal_blocked' is called from kvm_vcpu_latch_init which itself is
currently called from kvm_vcpu_latch_init which happens after we would vmexit if INIT is intercepted by nested
hypervisor.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-17 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-11 21:05 [PATCH v2 0/9] KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-11 21:05 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] KVM: x86: check validity of argument to KVM_SET_MP_STATE Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-15 13:31 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-08-16 22:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-11 21:05 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] KVM: x86: remove return value of kvm_vcpu_block Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-16 23:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-17 14:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-08-17 15:31 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-17 16:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-17 16:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-09-20 0:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-11 21:05 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] KVM: x86: make kvm_vcpu_{block,halt} return whether vCPU is runnable Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] KVM: mips, x86: do not rely on KVM_REQ_UNHALT Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: remove KVM_REQ_UNHALT Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] KVM: x86: make vendor code check for all nested events Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-16 23:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-17 14:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] KVM: nVMX: Make an event request when pending an MTF nested VM-Exit Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-17 14:11 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: x86: lapic does not have to process INIT if it is blocked Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-17 0:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-17 14:11 ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2022-08-17 15:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-11 21:06 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-16 23:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-17 14:11 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-09-20 0:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-09-20 0:55 ` Sean Christopherson
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=226aca0a2cc95f57364f330793a2f13446fcf7a0.camel@redhat.com \
--to=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®