On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:54:26PM +0000, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 05:48:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 27/09/2018 11:17, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > Roman Kagan <rka...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:02:56PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > >>> In most common cases VP index of a vcpu matches its vcpu index.
> > >>> Userspace
> > >>> is, however, free to set any mapping it wishes and we need to account
> > >>> for
> > >>> that when we need to find a vCPU with a particular VP index. To keep
> > >>> search
> > >>> algorithms optimal in both cases introduce 'num_mismatched_vp_indexes'
> > >>> counter showing how many vCPUs with mismatching VP index we have. In
> > >>> case
> > >>> the counter is zero we can assume vp_index == vcpu_idx.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 +++
> > >>> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> index 09b2e3e2cf1b..711f79f1b5e6 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> @@ -781,6 +781,9 @@ struct kvm_hv {
> > >>> u64 hv_reenlightenment_control;
> > >>> u64 hv_tsc_emulation_control;
> > >>> u64 hv_tsc_emulation_status;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + /* How many vCPUs have VP index != vCPU index */
> > >>> + atomic_t num_mismatched_vp_indexes;
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> enum kvm_irqchip_mode {
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > >>> index c8764faf783b..6a19c8e3c432 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > >>> @@ -1045,11 +1045,31 @@ static int kvm_hv_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu
> > >>> *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data, bool host)
> > >>> struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu = &vcpu->arch.hyperv;
> > >>>
> > >>> switch (msr) {
> > >>> - case HV_X64_MSR_VP_INDEX:
> > >>> - if (!host || (u32)data >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS)
> > >>> + case HV_X64_MSR_VP_INDEX: {
> > >>> + struct kvm_hv *hv = &vcpu->kvm->arch.hyperv;
> > >>> + int vcpu_idx = kvm_vcpu_get_idx(vcpu);
> > >>> + u32 new_vp_index = (u32)data;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (!host || new_vp_index >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS)
> > >>> return 1;
> > >>> - hv_vcpu->vp_index = (u32)data;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (new_vp_index == hv_vcpu->vp_index)
> > >>> + return 0;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + /*
> > >>> + * VP index is changing, increment
> > >>> num_mismatched_vp_indexes in
> > >>> + * case it was equal to vcpu_idx before; on the other
> > >>> hand, if
> > >>> + * the new VP index matches vcpu_idx
> > >>> num_mismatched_vp_indexes
> > >>> + * needs to be decremented.
> > >>
> > >> It may be worth mentioning that the initial balance is provided by
> > >> kvm_hv_vcpu_postcreate setting vp_index = vcpu_idx.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Of course, yes, will update the comment in case I'll be re-submitting.
> >
> > /*
> > * VP index is initialized to hv_vcpu->vp_index by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vcpu_idx
> > * kvm_hv_vcpu_postcreate so they initially match. Now the
> > * VP index is changing, adjust num_mismatched_vp_indexes if
> > * it now matches or no longer matches vcpu_idx.
> > */
> >
> > ?
>
> To my taste - perfect :)
Well, almost :)
Roman.
