2016-09-19 21:44 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>:
> 2016-09-18 14:53+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> 2016-09-15 23:58 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>:
>>> 2016-09-15 15:05+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>>>> 2016-09-14 20:03 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>:
>>>>> 2016-09-14 11:40+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
>>>>>> On 14/09/2016 09:58, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I observed that kvmvapic(to optimize flexpriority=N or AMD) is used
>>>>>>> to boost TPR access when testing kvm-unit-test/eventinj.flat tpr case
>>>>>>> on my haswell desktop (w/ flexpriority, w/o APICv). Commit (8d14695f9542
>>>>>>> x86, apicv: add virtual x2apic support) disable virtual x2apic mode
>>>>>>> completely if w/o APICv, and the author also told me that windows guest
>>>>>>> can't enter into x2apic mode when he developed the APICv feature several
>>>>>>> years ago. However, it is not truth currently, Interrupt Remapping and
>>>>>>> vIOMMU is added to qemu and the developers from Intel test windows 8 can
>>>>>>> work in x2apic mode w/ Interrupt Remapping enabled recently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch enables TPR shadow for virtual x2apic mode to boost
>>>>>>> windows guest in x2apic mode even if w/o APICv.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can pass the kvm-unit-test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, now I see what you meant; this actually makes sense.  I don't expect
>>>>>> much speedup though, because Linux doesn't touch the TPR and Windows is
>>>>>> likely going to use the Hyper-V APIC MSRs when APICv is disabled.  For
>>>>>> this reason I'm not sure if the patch is useful in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Paolo on the use case -- what configurations benefit from
>>>>> this change?
>>>>>
>>>>>> To test this patch, you have to run kvm-unit-tests with Hyper-V
>>>>>> synthetic interrupt enabled.  Did you do this?
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch is buggy.  MSR bitmaps are global and we'd have a CVE if one
>>>>> guests used synic (=> disabled apicv) and one didn't.
>>>>> You'd want a new set of bitmaps and assign them in vmx_set_msr_bitmap()
>>>>> (or completely rewrite our management).
>>>>
>>>> Do you think introduce per-VM x2apic msr bitmap make sense?
>>>
>>> Not much.  It would still need different msr bitmaps for VCPUs in
>>> various modes, so it would take more memory and be slower without giving
>>> nicer code as we'd have to do pretty much the same as we do now.
>>> We could improve clarity of the caching solution instead ...
>>>
>>> Per-VCPU could allow a slightly clearer design, but that is very
>>> wasteful -- the caching isn't that bad.
>>
>> Could you elaborate the caching design in your mind? :)
>
> The one we already do -- precompute all possible bitmaps at KVM
> initialization and assign the appropriate ones at runtime.

I see. :)

>
>>                                                         In addition,
>> I'm not sure whether we still can get benefit from x2apic tpr shadow
>> w/o APICv since the overhead of the other bitmaps/caching.
>
> Overhead from assigning a cached MSR bitmap should be less than one VM
> exit caused by a TPR write when there are no pending interrupts.
> Are there other sources of overhead?

Then I understand what the cached MSR bitmap you mean instead of
introducing another caching.

>
>> Btw, I heard from Tianyu from Intel, you said there was a x2apic bug
>> in kvm forum and the bug maybe in kvm, I guess I meet the same bug
>> when run a windows guest(server version of windows 7, 2008 or 2012) w/
>> x2apic enabled in guest and -machine q35,kernel_irqchip=spit -device
>> intel-iommu, intremap=on in the QEMU command line.
>
> Does it happen when you are running less than 8 VCPUs (max APIC ID < 8)?
> QEMU always enabled x2APIC support in IOMMU (EIME) even though it
> doesn't work under some configurations.

Yes, less than 8 vCPUs in my testing and "bcdedit /set x2apicpolicy
enable" to enable x2apic in windows server guests, the windows guests
BSOD after reboot.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

Reply via email to