Re: [PATCH 4/5] KVM: add __kvm_request_needs_mb

Andrew Jones
2017-02-24T12:46:59Z

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:34:07PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:17:05PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > [Oops, the end of this thread got dragged into a mark-as-read spree ...]
> >
> > 2017-02-17 11:13+0100, David Hildenbrand:
> > >>> This is really complicated stuff, and the basic reason for it (if I
> > >>> remember correctly) is that s390x does reenable all interrupts when
> > >>> entering the sie (see kvm-s390.c:__vcpu_run()). So the fancy smp-based
> > >>> kicks don't work (as it is otherwise just racy), and if I remember
> > >>> correctly, SMP reschedule signals (s390x external calls) would be
> > >>> slower. (Christian, please correct me if I'm wrong)
> > >>
> > >> No the reason was that there are some requests that need to be handled
> > >> outside run SIE. For example one reason was the guest prefix page.
> > >> This must be mapped read/write ALL THE TIME when a guest is running,
> > >> otherwise the host might crash. So we have to exit SIE and make sure that
> > >> it does not reenter, therefore we use the RELOAD_MMU request from a notifier
> > >> that is called from page table functions, whenever memory management decides
> > >> to unmap/write protect (dirty pages tracking, reference tracking, page migration
> > >> or compaction...)
> > >>
> > >> SMP-based request wills kick out the guest, but for some thing like the
> > >> one above it will be too late.
> > >
> > > While what you said is 100% correct, I had something else in mind that
> > > hindered using vcpu_kick() and especially kvm_make_all_cpus_request().
> > > And I remember that being related to how preemption and
> > > OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE is handled. I think this boils down to what would
> > > have to be implemented in kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick().
> > >
> > > x86 can track the guest state using vcpu->mode, because they can be sure
> > > that the guest can't reschedule while in the critical guest entry/exit
> > > section. This is not true for s390x, as preemption is enabled. That's
> > > why vcpu->mode cannot be used in its current form to track if a VCPU is
> > > in/oustide/exiting guest mode. And kvm_make_all_cpus_request() currently
> > > relies on this setting.
> > >
> > > For now, calling vcpu_kick() on s390x will result in a BUG().
> > >
> > >
> > > On s390x, there are 3 use cases I see for requests:
> > >
> > > 1. Remote requests that need a sync
> > >
> > > Make a request, wait until SIE has been left and make sure the request
> > > will be processed before re-entering the SIE. e.g. KVM_REQ_RELOAD_MMU
> > > notifier in mmu notifier you mentioned. Also KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS is a
> > > candidate.
> >
> > Btw. aren't those requests racy?
> >
> > void exit_sie(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags);
> >
> > If you get stalled here and the target VCPU handles the request and
> > reenters SIE in the meantime, then you'll wait until its next exit.
> > (And miss an unbounded amount of exits in the worst case.)
> >
> > while (vcpu->arch.sie_block->prog0c & PROG_IN_SIE)
> > cpu_relax();
> > }
> >
> > And out of curiosity -- how many cycles does this loop usually take?
> >
> > > 2. Remote requests that don't need a sync
> > >
> > > E.g. KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS doesn't strictly need it, while
> > > KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS does.
> >
> > A usual KVM request would kick the VCPU out of nested virt as well.
> > Shouldn't it be done for these as well?
> >
> > > 3. local requests
> > >
> > > E.g. KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH from kvm_s390_set_prefix()
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, having a unified interface would be better.
> > >
> > > /* set the request and kick the CPU out of guest mode */
> > > kvm_set_request(req, vcpu);
> > >
> > > /* set the request, kick the CPU out of guest mode, wait until guest
> > > mode has been left and make sure the request will be handled before
> > > reentering guest mode */
> > > kvm_set_sync_request(req, vcpu);
> >
> > Sounds good, I'll also add
> >
> > kvm_set_self_request(req, vcpu);
> >
> > > Same maybe even for multiple VCPUs (as there are then ways to speed it
> > > up, e.g. first kick all, then wait for all)
> > >
> > > This would require arch specific callbacks to
> > > 1. pre announce the request (e.g. set PROG_REQUEST on s390x)
> > > 2. kick the cpu (e.g. CPUSTAT_STOP_INT and later
> > > kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu) on s390x)
> > > 3. check if still executing the guest (e.g. PROG_IN_SIE on s390x)
> > >
> > > This would only make sense if there are other use cases for sync
> > > requests. At least I remember that Power also has a faster way for
> > > kicking VCPUs, not involving SMP rescheds. I can't judge if this is a
> > > s390x only thing and is better be left as is :)
> > >
> > > At least vcpu_kick() could be quite easily made to work on s390x.
> > >
> > > Radim, are there also other users that need something like sync requests?
> >
> > I think that ARM has a similar need when updating vgic, but relies on an
> > asumption that VCPUs are going to be out after kicking them with
> > kvm_make_all_cpus_request().
> > (vgic_change_active_prepare in virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c)
>
> Yes, we have similar needs. We don't actually use the requests
> infrastructure in the moment (although I have plans to move to that
> following a long series of optimization patches I have stashed on my
> machine), but we reuse the kvm_make_all_cpus_request function to figure
> out which CPUs need a kick, and which don't, instead of duplicating this
> logic in the ARM tree.

I also have patches (that I was going to post a week ago, but then decided
to base on Radim's work) that bring vcpu-requests to arm. The patches I
have are to plug a few races, most notably ones in PSCI emulation. You may
recall an off-list discussion we had about those races that took place
roughly one million years ago. Indeed it was your suggestion at the time
to bring vcpu-requests to arm.

I'll still post those patches shortly. I think Radim plans to post a v2
soon, so I'll rebase on that.

>
> >
> > Having synchronous requests in a common API should probably wait for the
> > completion of the request, not just for the kick, which would make race
> > handling simpler.
> >
> > I'm not going to worry about them in this pass, though.
> >
>
> I'll be happy to help working on this or at least reviewing stuff to
> move our home-baked "stop all VCPUs and wait for something before
> entering the guest again" functionality to common functionality that
> uses requests.
>

Thanks,
drew