From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
scott@os.amperecomputing.com,
Darren Hart <darren@os.amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Fixes for Nested Virtualization issues
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:54:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mt6pecbo.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o7r6dpi8.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:54:39 +0000,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:17:20 +0000,
> Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am currently working around this with "nohlt" kernel param to
> > NestedVM. Any suggestions to handle/fix this case/issue and avoid the
> > slowness of booting of NestedVM with more cores?
> >
> > Note: Guest-Hypervisor and NestedVM are using default kernel installed
> > using Fedora 36 iso.
>
> Despite what I said earlier, I have a vague idea here, thanks to the
> interesting call traces that you provided (this is really awesome work
> BTW, given how hard it is to trace things across 3 different kernels).
>
> We can slightly limit the impact of the prepare/finish sequence if the
> guest hypervisor only accesses the active registers for SGIs/PPIs on
> the vcpu that owns them, forbidding any cross-CPU-to-redistributor
> access.
>
> Something along these lines, which is only boot-tested. Let me know
> how this fares for you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> index b32d434c1d4a..1cca45be5335 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> @@ -473,9 +473,10 @@ int vgic_uaccess_write_cpending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> * active state can be overwritten when the VCPU's state is synced coming back
> * from the guest.
> *
> - * For shared interrupts as well as GICv3 private interrupts, we have to
> - * stop all the VCPUs because interrupts can be migrated while we don't hold
> - * the IRQ locks and we don't want to be chasing moving targets.
> + * For shared interrupts as well as GICv3 private interrupts accessed from the
> + * non-owning CPU, we have to stop all the VCPUs because interrupts can be
> + * migrated while we don't hold the IRQ locks and we don't want to be chasing
> + * moving targets.
> *
> * For GICv2 private interrupts we don't have to do anything because
> * userspace accesses to the VGIC state already require all VCPUs to be
> @@ -484,7 +485,8 @@ int vgic_uaccess_write_cpending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> */
> static void vgic_access_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> {
> - if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 ||
> + if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 &&
> + vcpu == kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
This should obviously be
+ vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
> intid >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> }
> @@ -492,7 +494,8 @@ static void vgic_access_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> /* See vgic_access_active_prepare */
> static void vgic_access_active_finish(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> {
> - if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 ||
> + if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 &&
> + vcpu == kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
Same here.
> intid >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> }
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
scott@os.amperecomputing.com,
Darren Hart <darren@os.amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Fixes for Nested Virtualization issues
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:54:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mt6pecbo.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o7r6dpi8.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:54:39 +0000,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:17:20 +0000,
> Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am currently working around this with "nohlt" kernel param to
> > NestedVM. Any suggestions to handle/fix this case/issue and avoid the
> > slowness of booting of NestedVM with more cores?
> >
> > Note: Guest-Hypervisor and NestedVM are using default kernel installed
> > using Fedora 36 iso.
>
> Despite what I said earlier, I have a vague idea here, thanks to the
> interesting call traces that you provided (this is really awesome work
> BTW, given how hard it is to trace things across 3 different kernels).
>
> We can slightly limit the impact of the prepare/finish sequence if the
> guest hypervisor only accesses the active registers for SGIs/PPIs on
> the vcpu that owns them, forbidding any cross-CPU-to-redistributor
> access.
>
> Something along these lines, which is only boot-tested. Let me know
> how this fares for you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> index b32d434c1d4a..1cca45be5335 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> @@ -473,9 +473,10 @@ int vgic_uaccess_write_cpending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> * active state can be overwritten when the VCPU's state is synced coming back
> * from the guest.
> *
> - * For shared interrupts as well as GICv3 private interrupts, we have to
> - * stop all the VCPUs because interrupts can be migrated while we don't hold
> - * the IRQ locks and we don't want to be chasing moving targets.
> + * For shared interrupts as well as GICv3 private interrupts accessed from the
> + * non-owning CPU, we have to stop all the VCPUs because interrupts can be
> + * migrated while we don't hold the IRQ locks and we don't want to be chasing
> + * moving targets.
> *
> * For GICv2 private interrupts we don't have to do anything because
> * userspace accesses to the VGIC state already require all VCPUs to be
> @@ -484,7 +485,8 @@ int vgic_uaccess_write_cpending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> */
> static void vgic_access_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> {
> - if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 ||
> + if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 &&
> + vcpu == kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
This should obviously be
+ vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
> intid >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> }
> @@ -492,7 +494,8 @@ static void vgic_access_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> /* See vgic_access_active_prepare */
> static void vgic_access_active_finish(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> {
> - if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 ||
> + if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 &&
> + vcpu == kvm_get_running_vcpu()) ||
Same here.
> intid >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> }
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-11 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-24 6:03 [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Fixes for Nested Virtualization issues Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: nv: only emulate timers that have not yet fired Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-12-29 13:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 13:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 13:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-09 12:25 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-09 12:25 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-09 13:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-09 13:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-09 14:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-09 14:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Emulate ISTATUS when emulated timers are fired Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-12-29 13:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 13:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 13:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-02 11:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-02 11:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-02 11:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-03 4:21 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-03 4:21 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-03 4:21 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-10 8:41 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-10 8:41 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-10 10:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-10 10:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-08-24 6:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Avoid block mapping if max_map_size is smaller than block size Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-08-24 6:03 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-12-29 17:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 17:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-29 17:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-03 4:26 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-03 4:26 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-03 4:26 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-09 13:58 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-09 13:58 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-10-10 5:56 ` [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: nv: Fixes for Nested Virtualization issues Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-10-10 5:56 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-10-10 5:56 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2022-10-19 7:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-10-19 7:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-10-19 7:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-10 12:17 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-10 12:17 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-10 14:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-10 14:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-10 21:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-10 21:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-11 7:54 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2023-01-11 7:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-11 8:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 8:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 8:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 8:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 11:39 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-11 11:39 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-11 12:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 12:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2023-01-11 13:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-01-11 13:36 ` Marc Zyngier
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=87mt6pecbo.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=darren@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=scott@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=will@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.