From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Kechen Lu <kechenl@nvidia.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"chao.gao@intel.com" <chao.gao@intel.com>,
"vkuznets@redhat.com" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Somdutta Roy <somduttar@nvidia.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] KVM: x86: add vCPU scoped toggling for disabled exits
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:30:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YthX0brdWCZVFB3n@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB35008628D97A59AA302E772FCA8E9@DM6PR12MB3500.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, Kechen Lu wrote:
> > > @@ -6036,14 +6045,17 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm kvm,
> > > break;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > > - if (kvm->created_vcpus)
> > > - goto disable_exits_unlock;
> > > + if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
> >
> > I retract my comment about using a request, I got ahead of myself.
> >
> > Don't update vCPUs, the whole point of adding the !kvm->created_vcpus
> > check was to avoid having to update vCPUs when the per-VM behavior
> > changed.
> >
> > In other words, keep the restriction and drop the request.
> >
>
> I see. If we keep the restriction here and not updating vCPUs when
> kvm->created_vcpus is true, the per-VM and per-vCPU assumption would be
> different here? Not sure if I understand right:
> For per-VM, we assume the per-VM cap enabling is only before vcpus creation.
> For per-vCPU cap enabling, we are able to toggle the disabled exits runtime.
Yep. The main reason being that there's no use case for changing per-VM settings
after vCPUs are created. I.e. we could lift the restriction in the future if a
use case pops up, but until then, keep things simple.
> If I understand correctly, this also makes sense though.
Paging this all back in...
There are two (sane) options for defining KVM's ABI:
1) KVM combines the per-VM and per-vCPU settings
2) The per-vCPU settings override the per-VM settings
This series implements (2).
For (1), KVM would need to recheck the per-VM state during the per-vCPU update,
e.g. instead of simply modifying the per-vCPU flags, the vCPU-scoped handler
for KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS would need to merge the incoming settings with the
existing kvm->arch.xxx_in_guest flags.
I like (2) because it's simpler to implement and document (merging state is always
messy) and is more flexible. E.g. with (1), the only way to have per-vCPU settings
is for userspace to NOT set the per-VM disables and then set disables on a per-vCPU
basis. Whereas with (2), userspace can set (or not) the per-VM disables and then
override as needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-20 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-22 0:49 [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] KVM: x86: add per-vCPU exits disable capability Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before vCPUs created Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/7] KVM: x86: Move *_in_guest power management flags to vCPU scope Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/7] KVM: x86: Reject disabling of MWAIT interception when not allowed Kechen Lu
2022-07-20 17:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-20 18:37 ` Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/7] KVM: x86: Let userspace re-enable previously disabled exits Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] KVM: x86: add vCPU scoped toggling for " Kechen Lu
2022-07-20 18:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-20 19:04 ` Kechen Lu
2022-07-20 19:30 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-07-20 20:23 ` Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/7] KVM: x86: Add a new guest_debug flag forcing exit to userspace Kechen Lu
2022-07-20 17:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-20 19:11 ` Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 0:49 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/7] KVM: selftests: Add tests for VM and vCPU cap KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS Kechen Lu
2022-06-22 6:44 ` Huang, Shaoqin
2022-06-22 23:30 ` Kechen Lu
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=YthX0brdWCZVFB3n@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=kechenl@nvidia.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=somduttar@nvidia.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.