From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>,
den@virtuozzo.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:30:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161215143054.GC6667@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161215071840.GB7704@rkaganb.sw.ru>
2016-12-15 10:18+0300, Roman Kagan:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:29:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 14/12/2016 11:59, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>> >
>> > if ((exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT)
>> > && nested_exit_intr_ack_set(vcpu)) {
>> > - int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu);
>> > + int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu, true);
>> > WARN_ON(irq < 0);
>>
>> I think this is not needed, because all nested vmexits end with a KVM_REQ_EVENT:
I also think that it can safely be false and we could drop the parameter
from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt().
(We have injected the highest priority interrupt and put it into ISR,
raising PPR again to its level, so there should be nothing to do in
KVM_REQ_EVENT due to any TPR changes.)
>> /*
>> * the KVM_REQ_EVENT optimization bit is only on for one entry, and if
>> * we did not inject a still-pending event to L1 now because of
>> * nested_run_pending, we need to re-enable this bit.
>> */
>> if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
>> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>
> IIRC .nested_run_pending indicates we're emulating vmlaunch/vmresume and
> should not vmexit to L1, so this is not exactly "all nested vmexits"...
>
>> This would allow you to always pass false from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt to
>> kvm_get_apic_interrupt. Not sure if the additional complication in vmx.c
>> is worth the simplification in lapic.c. Radim, second opinion? :)
This patch goes for a minimal change in the non-nested case, so I would
leave nVMX optimizations for another patch.
One useless round of KVM_REQ_EVENT is not going change nested
performance by much and it is not the only thing we could improve wrt.
TPR ... I would just leave it for now and take care of it when we
* don't to update PPR at all with APICv -- it is already correct
* drop the KVM_REQ_EVENT with flex priority, because lower TPR cannot
unmask an interrupt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-15 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-14 10:59 [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT Denis Plotnikov
2016-12-14 21:36 ` Radim Krčmář
2016-12-14 22:29 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-12-15 7:18 ` Roman Kagan
2016-12-15 14:30 ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-12-15 14:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-12-15 14:56 ` Roman Kagan
2016-12-18 21:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=20161215143054.GC6667@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 \
/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.