From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: rkagan@virtuozzo.com, den@virtuozzo.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
svt-core@lists.sw.ru, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:29:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161212162943.GA2237@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161212140223.277077-1-dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
2016-12-12 17:02+0300, Denis Plotnikov:
> When processing KVM_REQ_EVENT, apic_update_ppr is called which may set
> KVM_REQ_EVENT again if the recalculated value of PPR becomes smaller
> than the previous one. This results in cancelling the guest entry and
> reiterating in vcpu_enter_guest.
>
> However this is unnecessary because at this point KVM_REQ_EVENT is
> already being processed and there are no other changes in the lapic
> that may require full-fledged state recalculation.
>
> This situation is often hit on systems with TPR shadow, where the
> TPR can be updated by the guest without a vmexit, so that the first
> apic_update_ppr to notice it is exactly the one called while
> processing KVM_REQ_EVENT.
>
> To avoid it, introduce a parameter in apic_update_ppr allowing to
> suppress setting of KVM_REQ_EVENT, and use it on the paths called from
> KVM_REQ_EVENT processing.
We also call:
kvm_cpu_get_interrupt() in nested_vmx_vmexit()
- that path is intended without KVM_REQ_EVENT
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in vmx_check_nested_events(),
- I think it does no harm
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_has_events()
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection()
- both seem safe as we should not have an interrupt between TPR
threshold and the new PPR value, so the KVM_REQ_EVENT was useless.
I would prefer we made sure that only callers from KVM_REQ_EVENT used
the function we are changing -- it is really easy to make a hard-to-find
mistake in interrupt delivery.
> This microoptimization gives 10% performance increase on a synthetic
> test doing a lot of IPC in Windows using window messages.
>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
> Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
Still, there is a high possibility that this is going to work,
Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-12 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 14:02 [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT Denis Plotnikov
2016-12-12 16:29 ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-12-12 20:20 ` Roman Kagan
2016-12-13 15:16 ` Radim Krčmář
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=20161212162943.GA2237@potion \
--to=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=den@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkagan@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=svt-core@lists.sw.ru \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.