From: "Mancini, Riccardo" <mancio@amazon.com>
To: "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"vkuznets@redhat.com" <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Graf (AWS),
Alexander" <graf@amazon.de>,
"Teragni, Matias" <mteragni@amazon.com>,
"Batalov, Eugene" <bataloe@amazon.com>
Subject: Bug? Incompatible APF for 4.14 guest on 5.10 and later host
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 15:08:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d5ddfbe407940afa02567262a22fa4c@amazon.com> (raw)
Hi,
when a 4.14 guest runs on a 5.10 host (and later), it cannot use APF (despite
CPUID advertising KVM_FEATURE_ASYNC_PF) due to the new interrupt-based
mechanism 2635b5c4a0 (KVM: x86: interrupt based APF 'page ready' event delivery).
Kernels after 5.9 won't satisfy the guest request to enable APF through
KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED, requiring also KVM_ASYNC_PF_DELIVERY_AS_INT to be set.
Furthermore, the patch set seems to be dropping parts of the legacy #PF handling
as well.
I consider this as a bug as it breaks APF compatibility for older guests running
on newer kernels, by breaking the underlying ABI.
What do you think? Was this a deliberate decision?
Was this already reported in the past (I couldn't find anything in the mailing list
but I might have missed it!)?
Would it be much effort to support the legacy #PF based mechanism for older
guests that choose to only set KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED?
The reason this is an issue for us now is that not having APF for older guests
introduces a significant performance regression on 4.14 guests when paired to
uffd handling of "remote" page-faults (similar to a live migration scenario)
when we update from a 4.14 host kernel to a 5.10 host kernel.
Thanks,
Riccardo
next reply other threads:[~2023-10-05 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-05 15:08 Mancini, Riccardo [this message]
2023-10-05 15:38 ` Bug? Incompatible APF for 4.14 guest on 5.10 and later host Vitaly Kuznetsov
2023-10-13 16:36 ` [RFC PATCH 4.14] KVM: x86: Backport support for interrupt-based APF page-ready delivery in guest Riccardo Mancini
2023-10-16 14:18 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2023-10-16 21:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-10-17 11:22 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2023-10-05 16:15 ` Bug? Incompatible APF for 4.14 guest on 5.10 and later host Paolo Bonzini
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-10-05 17:24 Mancini, Riccardo
2023-10-06 1:39 ` Gavin Shan
2023-10-13 15:40 Mancini, Riccardo
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=9d5ddfbe407940afa02567262a22fa4c@amazon.com \
--to=mancio@amazon.com \
--cc=bataloe@amazon.com \
--cc=graf@amazon.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mteragni@amazon.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.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.