From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "James Hogan" <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: fix guest_mode optimization in kvm_make_all_cpus_request()
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:25:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a6091fa0-8107-239a-ad89-34ca2cba4fa8@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170406210215.GV31606@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org>
On 07/04/2017 05:02, James Hogan wrote:
> This presumably changes the behaviour on x86, from != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
> to == IN_GUEST_MODE. so:
> - you'll no longer get IPIs if its in READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES (which
> MIPS also now uses when accessing mappings outside of guest mode and
> depends upon to wait until the old mappings are no longer in use).
This is wrong, the purpose of READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES is "kvm_flush_remote_tlbs
should send me an IPI, because I want to stop kvm_flush_remote_tlbs until I'm done
reading the page tables".
> - you'll no longer get IPIs if its in EXITING_GUEST_MODE (i.e. if you
> get two of these in quick succession only the first will wait for the
> IPI, which might work as long as they're already serialised but it
> still feels wrong).
But this is okay---avoiding multiple IPIs is the exact purpose of
EXITING_GUEST_MODE.
There are evidently multiple uses of kvm_make_all_cpus_request, and we
should avoid smp_call_function_many(..., true) if possible. So perhaps:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index a17d78759727..20e3bd60bdda 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static void ack_flush(void *_completed)
{
}
-bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
+bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, bool wait)
{
int i, cpu, me;
cpumask_var_t cpus;
@@ -182,18 +182,19 @@ bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
kvm_make_request(req, vcpu);
cpu = vcpu->cpu;
+ if (cpus == NULL || cpu == -1 || cpu == me)
+ continue;
/* Set ->requests bit before we read ->mode. */
smp_mb__after_atomic();
-
- if (cpus != NULL && cpu != -1 && cpu != me &&
- kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(vcpu) != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE)
+ if (kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick(vcpu) ||
+ (wait && vcpu->mode != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE))
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
}
if (unlikely(cpus == NULL))
- smp_call_function_many(cpu_online_mask, ack_flush, NULL, 1);
+ smp_call_function_many(cpu_online_mask, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
else if (!cpumask_empty(cpus))
- smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, 1);
+ smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
else
called = false;
put_cpu();
@@ -221,7 +222,7 @@ void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm)
* kvm_make_all_cpus_request() reads vcpu->mode. We reuse that
* barrier here.
*/
- if (kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH))
+ if (kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, true))
++kvm->stat.remote_tlb_flush;
cmpxchg(&kvm->tlbs_dirty, dirty_count, 0);
}
@@ -230,7 +231,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_flush_remote_tlbs);
void kvm_reload_remote_mmus(struct kvm *kvm)
{
- kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD);
+ /* FIXME, is wait=true really needed? */
+ kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, true);
}
int kvm_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm *kvm, unsigned id)
Other users do not need wait=false.
Or another idea is to embed wait in the request number, as suggested in the
ARM thread, so that for example:
- bits 0-4 = bit number in vcpu->requests
- bit 8 = wait when making request
- bit 9 = kick after making request
Responding to Andrew, I agree that "we should do away with
kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick(), putting the x86 implementation of it
directly in the common code" (inlining kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode,
I may add). However, kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick is just an optimization,
it's not a bug not to use it. So let's first iron out
kvm_make_all_cpus_request.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-11 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 20:20 [PATCH 0/6] KVM: towards maintainable kvm_make_all_cpus_request() Radim Krčmář
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: fix guest_mode optimization in kvm_make_all_cpus_request() Radim Krčmář
2017-04-06 21:02 ` James Hogan
2017-04-10 15:59 ` Andrew Jones
2017-04-11 10:43 ` James Hogan
2017-04-11 5:25 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2017-04-11 9:37 ` James Hogan
2017-04-11 19:31 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-04-11 19:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-04-11 20:45 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-04-12 0:15 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-04-07 10:47 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH 2/6] KVM: use kvm_{test,clear}_request instead of {test,clear}_bit Radim Krčmář
2017-04-07 10:55 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-04-07 12:24 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-04-07 14:05 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH 3/6] KVM: x86: use kvm_make_request instead of set_bit Radim Krčmář
2017-04-07 8:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH 4/6] KVM: remove #ifndef CONFIG_S390 around kvm_vcpu_wake_up Radim Krčmář
2017-04-07 11:01 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] KVM: mark requests that do not need a wakeup Radim Krčmář
2017-04-07 8:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-04-07 12:29 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-04-06 20:20 ` [PATCH 6/6] KVM: perform a wake_up in kvm_make_all_cpus_request Radim Krčmář
2017-04-10 11:14 ` Andrew Jones
2017-04-11 5:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-04-11 12:04 ` Andrew Jones
2017-04-11 5:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-04-11 8:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=a6091fa0-8107-239a-ad89-34ca2cba4fa8@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=rkrcmar@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®