On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 16:31 +0000, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 7:14 AM UTC, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 11:17 +0000, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > HVCALL_SEND_IPI and HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX allow targeting specific a
> > > specific VTL. Honour the requests.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsa...@amazon.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c             | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/trace.h              | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> > >  include/asm-generic/hyperv-tlfs.h |  6 ++++--
> > >  3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > index d4b1b53ea63d..2cf430f6ddd8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > @@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
> > > struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> > >  }
> > > 
> > >  static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
> > > -                                 u64 *sparse_banks, u64 valid_bank_mask)
> > > +                                 u64 *sparse_banks, u64 valid_bank_mask, 
> > > int vtl)
> > >  {
> > >       struct kvm_lapic_irq irq = {
> > >               .delivery_mode = APIC_DM_FIXED,
> > > @@ -2245,6 +2245,9 @@ static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm 
> > > *kvm, u32 vector,
> > >                                           valid_bank_mask, sparse_banks))
> > >                       continue;
> > > 
> > > +             if (kvm_hv_get_active_vtl(vcpu) != vtl)
> > > +                     continue;
> > 
> > Do I understand correctly that this is a temporary limitation?
> > In other words, can a vCPU running in VTL1 send an IPI to a vCPU running 
> > VTL0,
> > forcing the target vCPU to do async switch to VTL1?
> > I think that this is possible.
> 
> The diff is missing some context. See this simplified implementation
> (when all_cpus is set in the parent function):
> 
> static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector, int vtl)
> {
>       [...]
>       kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>               if (kvm_hv_get_active_vtl(vcpu) != vtl)
>                       continue;
> 
>               kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, &irq, NULL);
>       }
> }
> 
> With the one vCPU per VTL approach, kvm_for_each_vcpu() will iterate
> over *all* vCPUs regardless of their VTL. The IPI is targetted at a
> specific VTL, hence the need to filter.
> 
> VTL1 -> VTL0 IPIs are supported and happen (although they are extremely
> rare).

Makes sense now, thanks!

Best regards,
        Maxim Levitsky

> 
> Nicolas
> 



Reply via email to