> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcelo Tosatti [mailto:mtosa...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:41 AM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; mi...@redhat.com; h...@zytor.com; x...@kernel.org;
> g...@kernel.org; pbonz...@redhat.com; dw...@infradead.org;
> j...@8bytes.org; alex.william...@redhat.com; jiang....@linux.intel.com;
> eric.au...@linaro.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
> io...@lists.linux-foundation.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [v3 24/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
> is blocked
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:14:58PM +0800, Feng Wu wrote:
> > This patch updates the Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
> > is blocked.
> >
> > pre-block:
> > - Add the vCPU to the blocked per-CPU list
> > - Clear 'SN'
> > - Set 'NV' to POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR
> >
> > post-block:
> > - Remove the vCPU from the per-CPU list
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 96
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 22 +++++++---
> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 6 +++
> > 5 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 13e3e40..32c110a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -101,6 +101,8 @@ static inline gfn_t gfn_to_index(gfn_t gfn, gfn_t
> base_gfn, int level)
> >
> > #define ASYNC_PF_PER_VCPU 64
> >
> > +extern void (*wakeup_handler_callback)(void);
> > +
> > enum kvm_reg {
> > VCPU_REGS_RAX = 0,
> > VCPU_REGS_RCX = 1,
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > index bf2e6cd..a1c83a2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > @@ -832,6 +832,13 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmcs *,
> current_vmcs);
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, loaded_vmcss_on_cpu);
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct desc_ptr, host_gdt);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * We maintian a per-CPU linked-list of vCPU, so in wakeup_handler() we
> > + * can find which vCPU should be waken up.
> > + */
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, blocked_vcpu_on_cpu);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock);
> > +
> > static unsigned long *vmx_io_bitmap_a;
> > static unsigned long *vmx_io_bitmap_b;
> > static unsigned long *vmx_msr_bitmap_legacy;
> > @@ -1921,6 +1928,7 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> int cpu)
> > struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
> > struct pi_desc old, new;
> > unsigned int dest;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > memset(&old, 0, sizeof(old));
> > memset(&new, 0, sizeof(new));
> > @@ -1942,6 +1950,20 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, int cpu)
> > new.nv = POSTED_INTR_VECTOR;
> > } while (cmpxchg(&pi_desc->control, old.control,
> > new.control) != old.control);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Delete the vCPU from the related wakeup queue
> > + * if we are resuming from blocked state
> > + */
> > + if (vcpu->blocked) {
> > + vcpu->blocked = false;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu), flags);
> > + list_del(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list);
> > +
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu), flags);
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu = -1;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1950,6 +1972,9 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > if (irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP)) {
> > struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
> > struct pi_desc old, new;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int cpu;
> > + struct cpumask cpu_others_mask;
> >
> > memset(&old, 0, sizeof(old));
> > memset(&new, 0, sizeof(new));
> > @@ -1961,6 +1986,54 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
> > pi_set_sn(&new);
> > } while (cmpxchg(&pi_desc->control, old.control,
> > new.control) != old.control);
> > + } else if (vcpu->blocked) {
> > + /*
> > + * The vcpu is blocked on the wait queue.
> > + * Store the blocked vCPU on the list of the
> > + * vcpu->wakeup_cpu, which is the destination
> > + * of the wake-up notification event.
> > + */
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu = vcpu->cpu;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu), flags);
> > + list_add_tail(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list,
> > + &per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu,
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu));
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(
> > + &per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu), flags);
> > +
> > + do {
> > + old.control = new.control = pi_desc->control;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We should not block the vCPU if
> > + * an interrupt is posted for it.
> > + */
> > + if (pi_test_on(pi_desc) == 1) {
> > + /*
> > + * We need schedule the wakeup worker
> > + * on a different cpu other than
> > + * vcpu->cpu, because in some case,
> > + * schedule_work() will call
> > + * try_to_wake_up() which needs acquire
> > + * the rq lock. This can cause deadlock.
> > + */
> > + cpumask_copy(&cpu_others_mask,
> > + cpu_online_mask);
> > + cpu_clear(vcpu->cpu, cpu_others_mask);
> > + cpu = any_online_cpu(cpu_others_mask);
> > +
> > + schedule_work_on(cpu,
> > + &vcpu->wakeup_worker);
> > + }
> > +
> > + pi_clear_sn(&new);
> > +
> > + /* set 'NV' to 'wakeup vector' */
> > + new.nv = POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR;
> > + } while (cmpxchg(&pi_desc->control, old.control,
> > + new.control) != old.control);
> > }
>
> This can be done exclusively on HLT emulation, correct? (that is, on
> entry to HLT and exit from HLT).
Do you mean the following?
In kvm_emulate_halt(), we do:
1. Add vCPU in the blocking list
2. Clear 'SN'
3. set 'NV' to POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR
In __vcpu_run(), after kvm_vcpu_block(), we remove the vCPU from the
Bloc king list.
>
> If the vcpu is scheduled out for any other reason (transition to
> userspace or transition to other thread), it will eventually resume
> execution. And in that case, continuation of execution does not depend
> on the event (VT-d interrupt) notification.
Yes, I think this is true for my current implementation, right?
>
> There is a race window with the code above, I believe.
I did careful code review back and forth for the above code, It will
be highly appreciated if you can point out the race window!
>
> > }
> >
> > @@ -2842,6 +2915,8 @@ static int hardware_enable(void)
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(loaded_vmcss_on_cpu, cpu));
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu, cpu));
> > + spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
> >
> > /*
> > * Now we can enable the vmclear operation in kdump
> > @@ -9315,6 +9390,25 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops = {
> > .pi_set_sn = vmx_pi_set_sn,
> > };
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Handler for POSTED_INTERRUPT_WAKEUP_VECTOR.
> > + */
> > +void wakeup_handler(void)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
> > + list_for_each_entry(vcpu, &per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu, cpu),
> > + blocked_vcpu_list) {
> > + struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
> > +
> > + if (pi_test_on(pi_desc) == 1)
> > + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
> > +}
>
> Looping through all blocked vcpus does not scale:
> Can you allocate more vectors and then multiplex those
> vectors amongst the HLT'ed vcpus?
I am a little confused about this, can you elaborate it a bit more?
Thanks a lot!
>
> It seems there is a bunch free:
>
> commit 52aec3308db85f4e9f5c8b9f5dc4fbd0138c6fa4
> Author: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
> Date: Thu Jun 28 09:02:23 2012 +0800
>
> x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR
>
> Can you add only vcpus which have posted IRTEs that point to this pCPU
> to the HLT'ed vcpu lists? (so for example, vcpus without assigned
> devices are not part of the list).
Is it easy to find whether a vCPU (or the associated domain) has assigned
devices?
If so, we can only add those vCPUs with assigned devices.
>
> > +
> > static int __init vmx_init(void)
> > {
> > int r, i, msr;
> > @@ -9429,6 +9523,8 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
> >
> > update_ple_window_actual_max();
> >
> > + wakeup_handler_callback = wakeup_handler;
> > +
> > return 0;
> >
> > out7:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 0033df3..1551a46 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -6152,6 +6152,21 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
> > kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page(vcpu);
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Since posted-interrupts can be set by VT-d HW now, in this
> > + * case, KVM_REQ_EVENT is not set. We move the following
> > + * operations out of the if statement.
> > + */
> > + if (kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Update architecture specific hints for APIC
> > + * virtual interrupt delivery.
> > + */
> > + if (kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update)
> > + kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
> > + kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(vcpu));
> > + }
> > +
>
> This is a hot fast path. You can set KVM_REQ_EVENT from wakeup_handler.
I am afraid Setting KVM_REQ_EVENT from wakeup_handler doesn't help much,
if vCPU is running in ROOT mode, and VT-d hardware issues an notification event,
POSTED_INTR_VECTOR interrupt handler will be called.
Again, POSTED_INTR_VECTOR interrupt handler may be called very frequently,
it is a little hard to get vCPU related information in it, even if we get, it
is not
accurate and may harm the performance.(need search)
>
> > if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win) {
> > kvm_apic_accept_events(vcpu);
> > if (vcpu->arch.mp_state == KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED) {
> > @@ -6168,13 +6183,6 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
> > kvm_x86_ops->enable_irq_window(vcpu);
> >
> > if (kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu)) {
> > - /*
> > - * Update architecture specific hints for APIC
> > - * virtual interrupt delivery.
> > - */
> > - if (kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update)
> > - kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
> > - kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(vcpu));
> > update_cr8_intercept(vcpu);
> > kvm_lapic_sync_to_vapic(vcpu);
> > }
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 3d7242c..d981d16 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ struct kvm_vcpu {
> > unsigned long requests;
> > unsigned long guest_debug;
> >
> > + int wakeup_cpu;
> > + struct list_head blocked_vcpu_list;
> > +
> > struct mutex mutex;
> > struct kvm_run *run;
> >
> > @@ -282,6 +285,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu {
> > } spin_loop;
> > #endif
> > bool preempted;
> > + bool blocked;
> > struct kvm_vcpu_arch arch;
> > };
>
> Please remove blocked and wakeup_cpu, they should not be necessary.
Why do you think wakeup_cpu is not needed, when vCPU is blocked,
wakeup_cpu saves the cpu which the vCPU is blocked on, after vCPU
is woken up, it can run on a different cpu, so we need wakeup_cpu to
find the right list to wake up the vCPU.
Thanks,
Feng
>
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index ba53fd6..6deb994 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -233,6 +233,9 @@ int kvm_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm
> *kvm, unsigned id)
> >
> > INIT_WORK(&vcpu->wakeup_worker, wakeup_thread);
> >
> > + vcpu->wakeup_cpu = -1;
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list);
> > +
> > page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> > if (!page) {
> > r = -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -243,6 +246,7 @@ int kvm_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm
> *kvm, unsigned id)
> > kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(vcpu, false);
> > kvm_vcpu_set_dy_eligible(vcpu, false);
> > vcpu->preempted = false;
> > + vcpu->blocked = false;
> >
> > r = kvm_arch_vcpu_init(vcpu);
> > if (r < 0)
> > @@ -1752,6 +1756,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > + vcpu->blocked = true;
> > prepare_to_wait(&vcpu->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >
> > if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
> > @@ -1767,6 +1772,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > }
> >
> > finish_wait(&vcpu->wq, &wait);
> > + vcpu->blocked = false;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_vcpu_block);
> >
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
