From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] arm64: add host pv-vcpu-state support
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:15:47 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPd1Q1ppmKng67tk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kcz33g5.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On (21/07/12 17:24), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> > void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > + kvm_update_vcpu_preempted(vcpu, true);
>
> This doesn't look right. With this, you are now telling the guest that
> a vcpu that is blocked on WFI is preempted. This really isn't the
> case, as it has voluntarily entered a low-power mode while waiting for
> an interrupt. Indeed, the vcpu isn't running. A physical CPU wouldn't
> be running either.
I suppose you are talking about kvm_vcpu_block(). Well, it checks
kvm_vcpu_check_block() but then it simply schedule() out the vcpu
process, which does look like "the vcpu is preempted". Once we
sched_in() that vcpu process again we mark it as non-preempted,
even though it remains in kvm wfx handler. Why isn't it right?
Another call path is iret:
<iret>
__schedule()
context_switch()
prepare_task_switch()
fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers()
kvm_sched_out()
kvm_arch_vcpu_put()
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] arm64: add host pv-vcpu-state support
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:15:47 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPd1Q1ppmKng67tk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kcz33g5.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On (21/07/12 17:24), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> > void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > + kvm_update_vcpu_preempted(vcpu, true);
>
> This doesn't look right. With this, you are now telling the guest that
> a vcpu that is blocked on WFI is preempted. This really isn't the
> case, as it has voluntarily entered a low-power mode while waiting for
> an interrupt. Indeed, the vcpu isn't running. A physical CPU wouldn't
> be running either.
I suppose you are talking about kvm_vcpu_block(). Well, it checks
kvm_vcpu_check_block() but then it simply schedule() out the vcpu
process, which does look like "the vcpu is preempted". Once we
sched_in() that vcpu process again we mark it as non-preempted,
even though it remains in kvm wfx handler. Why isn't it right?
Another call path is iret:
<iret>
__schedule()
context_switch()
prepare_task_switch()
fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers()
kvm_sched_out()
kvm_arch_vcpu_put()
_______________________________________________
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: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] arm64: add host pv-vcpu-state support
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:15:47 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPd1Q1ppmKng67tk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kcz33g5.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On (21/07/12 17:24), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> > void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > + kvm_update_vcpu_preempted(vcpu, true);
>
> This doesn't look right. With this, you are now telling the guest that
> a vcpu that is blocked on WFI is preempted. This really isn't the
> case, as it has voluntarily entered a low-power mode while waiting for
> an interrupt. Indeed, the vcpu isn't running. A physical CPU wouldn't
> be running either.
I suppose you are talking about kvm_vcpu_block(). Well, it checks
kvm_vcpu_check_block() but then it simply schedule() out the vcpu
process, which does look like "the vcpu is preempted". Once we
sched_in() that vcpu process again we mark it as non-preempted,
even though it remains in kvm wfx handler. Why isn't it right?
Another call path is iret:
<iret>
__schedule()
context_switch()
prepare_task_switch()
fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers()
kvm_sched_out()
kvm_arch_vcpu_put()
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-21 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-09 4:37 [PATCHv2 0/4] arm64:kvm: teach guest sched that VCPUs can be preempted Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 1/4] arm64: smccc: Add SMCCC pv-vcpu-state function call IDs Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted() Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 4/4] arm64: add host pv-vcpu-state support Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 9:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 9:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 9:10 ` 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=YPd1Q1ppmKng67tk@google.com \
--to=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--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.