From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:47:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BEFBF42.6020208@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1273749459-622-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
On 05/16/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>>> So let me think this through. With remote interrupt injection we have.
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets injected
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>>
>>>
>> This doesn't seem necessary. The kernel can own the interrupt line, so it remembers it from the last KVM_INTERRUPT.
>>
> It's not?
With s/signals/IPIs/.
> On signals we always exit to userspace, no?
>
Yes (if the signal isn't blocked).
>>> * thread 1 goes back into the vcpu, triggering an interrupt
>>>
>>> Without we have:
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 wants to trigger an an interrupt, sets the qemu internal bit
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets processed
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>> * thread 1 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 1 goes into the vcpu
>>>
>>> So we don't really buy anything from doing the remote injection. Hrm.
>>>
>>>
>> Not if you make interrupt injection a lightweight exit.
>>
> Please elaborate.
>
1: vcpu_run
2: KVM_INTERRUPT
2k: sets flag, if msr.ee IPIs 1 or wakes up 1 if halted
1k: notices flag, if msr.ee injects interrupt
...
1g: acks
1k: forwards ack to userspace
1: completes interrupt
>>> What's somewhat striking me here though is - why do we need KVM_INTERRUPT when there's all those kvm_run fields? Can't we just do interrupt injection by setting run->trigger_interrupt? There's only a single "interrupt line" on the CPU anyways. That way we'd save the ioctl and get rid of the locking problem altogether.
>>>
>>>
>> That's what x86 does. However, it's synchronous.
>>
> For everyone except for the vcpu thread executing the interrupt, it's asynchronous, right?
For everyone other than the vcpu thread, it's off limits. kvm_run is
only read on KVM_RUN entries and written on KVM_RUN exits.
> The same applies to an in-kernel pic.
>
The in-kernel pic doesn't use kvm_run.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
<mtosatti-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
<carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:47:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BEFBF42.6020208@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <04ED5A08-BE13-4C60-B152-EA5541975779-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
On 05/16/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>>> So let me think this through. With remote interrupt injection we have.
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets injected
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>>
>>>
>> This doesn't seem necessary. The kernel can own the interrupt line, so it remembers it from the last KVM_INTERRUPT.
>>
> It's not?
With s/signals/IPIs/.
> On signals we always exit to userspace, no?
>
Yes (if the signal isn't blocked).
>>> * thread 1 goes back into the vcpu, triggering an interrupt
>>>
>>> Without we have:
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 wants to trigger an an interrupt, sets the qemu internal bit
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets processed
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>> * thread 1 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 1 goes into the vcpu
>>>
>>> So we don't really buy anything from doing the remote injection. Hrm.
>>>
>>>
>> Not if you make interrupt injection a lightweight exit.
>>
> Please elaborate.
>
1: vcpu_run
2: KVM_INTERRUPT
2k: sets flag, if msr.ee IPIs 1 or wakes up 1 if halted
1k: notices flag, if msr.ee injects interrupt
...
1g: acks
1k: forwards ack to userspace
1: completes interrupt
>>> What's somewhat striking me here though is - why do we need KVM_INTERRUPT when there's all those kvm_run fields? Can't we just do interrupt injection by setting run->trigger_interrupt? There's only a single "interrupt line" on the CPU anyways. That way we'd save the ioctl and get rid of the locking problem altogether.
>>>
>>>
>> That's what x86 does. However, it's synchronous.
>>
> For everyone except for the vcpu thread executing the interrupt, it's asynchronous, right?
For everyone other than the vcpu thread, it's off limits. kvm_run is
only read on KVM_RUN entries and written on KVM_RUN exits.
> The same applies to an in-kernel pic.
>
The in-kernel pic doesn't use kvm_run.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
<mtosatti-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
<carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 12:47:46 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BEFBF42.6020208@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <04ED5A08-BE13-4C60-B152-EA5541975779-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
On 05/16/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>>> So let me think this through. With remote interrupt injection we have.
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets injected
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>>
>>>
>> This doesn't seem necessary. The kernel can own the interrupt line, so it remembers it from the last KVM_INTERRUPT.
>>
> It's not?
With s/signals/IPIs/.
> On signals we always exit to userspace, no?
>
Yes (if the signal isn't blocked).
>>> * thread 1 goes back into the vcpu, triggering an interrupt
>>>
>>> Without we have:
>>>
>>> * thread 1 does vcpu_run
>>> * thread 2 wants to trigger an an interrupt, sets the qemu internal bit
>>> * thread 2 signals thread 1 so we're sure the interrupt gets processed
>>> * thread 1 exits into qemu
>>> * thread 1 triggers KVM_INTERRUPT on fd
>>> * thread 1 goes into the vcpu
>>>
>>> So we don't really buy anything from doing the remote injection. Hrm.
>>>
>>>
>> Not if you make interrupt injection a lightweight exit.
>>
> Please elaborate.
>
1: vcpu_run
2: KVM_INTERRUPT
2k: sets flag, if msr.ee IPIs 1 or wakes up 1 if halted
1k: notices flag, if msr.ee injects interrupt
...
1g: acks
1k: forwards ack to userspace
1: completes interrupt
>>> What's somewhat striking me here though is - why do we need KVM_INTERRUPT when there's all those kvm_run fields? Can't we just do interrupt injection by setting run->trigger_interrupt? There's only a single "interrupt line" on the CPU anyways. That way we'd save the ioctl and get rid of the locking problem altogether.
>>>
>>>
>> That's what x86 does. However, it's synchronous.
>>
> For everyone except for the vcpu thread executing the interrupt, it's asynchronous, right?
For everyone other than the vcpu thread, it's off limits. kvm_run is
only read on KVM_RUN entries and written on KVM_RUN exits.
> The same applies to an in-kernel pic.
>
The in-kernel pic doesn't use kvm_run.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-16 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` [PATCH 3/7] KVM: move vcpu locking to dispatcher for generic vcpu ioctls Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-15 0:03 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-16 11:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] KVM: move vcpu locking to dispatcher for generic Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 11:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] KVM: move vcpu locking to dispatcher for generic vcpu ioctls Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 11:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] KVM: move vcpu locking to dispatcher for generic Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:57 ` [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 11:57 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 11:57 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 12:01 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:01 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:01 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:18 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 12:18 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 12:18 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 12:29 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:29 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 12:29 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 19:49 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 19:49 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-13 19:49 ` Alexander Graf
[not found] ` <B2627FBE-BB5E-45E2-8E67-E5859B6380A5-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
2010-05-15 6:16 ` Avi Kivity
[not found] ` <4BEE3C56.2070007-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2010-05-15 6:21 ` Alexander Graf
[not found] ` <F7406BC6-90A8-43B9-A57F-6B9350B6D356-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
2010-05-15 7:59 ` Avi Kivity
[not found] ` <4BEE544B.50405-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2010-05-15 8:26 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-15 17:30 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-15 17:30 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-15 17:30 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 1:00 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 1:00 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 1:00 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 8:23 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 8:23 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 8:23 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 9:01 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:01 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:01 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:09 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 9:09 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 9:09 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 9:35 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:35 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:35 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 9:47 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-05-16 9:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 9:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-16 10:19 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 10:19 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-16 10:19 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-21 7:35 ` Carsten Otte
2010-05-21 7:35 ` Carsten Otte
2010-05-21 7:35 ` Carsten Otte
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 1/7] KVM: PPC: Add missing vcpu_load()/vcpu_put() in vcpu ioctls Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 2/7] KVM: x86: Add missing locking to arch specific " Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86: Lock arch specific vcpu ioctls centrally Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 5/7] KVM: s390: Centrally lock arch specific vcpu ioctls Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 6/7] KVM: PPC: Centralize locking of " Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 [PATCH 7/7] KVM: Consolidate arch specific vcpu ioctl locking Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
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=4BEFBF42.6020208@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/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.