From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with
 percpu irq request
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:52:41 +0200
Message-ID: <20170425125241.GD16888@mai>
References: <1493042494-14057-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <398f3f3d-c567-0f1f-1a43-9b8d5805d5fd@arm.com>
 <20170424185909.GD2137@mai>
 <92e2a022-93d4-d4f3-78af-c9b5d51bb867@arm.com>
 <20170424195948.GE2137@mai>
 <16042494-2e67-e1a5-b9f6-af57e349d8a7@arm.com>
 <20170425083451.GA16888@mai>
 <f840e9d2-8aac-dc1d-6468-44f7658b55b1@arm.com>
 <20170425094927.GB16888@mai>
 <20170425102230.GJ4104@cbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
        Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, kernel@stlinux.com,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:35251 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1430641AbdDYMwq (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:52:46 -0400
Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z52so66894611wrc.2
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170425102230.GJ4104@cbox>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:22:30PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > 
> > > The idle code is very much *not* aware of anything concerning that guest
> > > timer.
> > 
> > Just for my own curiosity, if there are two VM (VM1 and VM2). VM1 sets a timer1
> > at <time> and exits, VM2 runs and sets a timer2 at <time+delta>.
> > 
> > The timer1 for VM1 is supposed to expire while VM2 is running. IIUC the virtual
> > timer is under control of VM2 and will expire at <time+delta>.
> > 
> > Is the host wake up with the SW timer and switch in VM1 which in turn restores
> > the timer and jump in the virtual timer irq handler?
> >  
> The thing that may be missing here is that a VCPU thread (more of which
> in a collection is a VM) is just a thread from the point of view of
> Linux, and whether or not a guest schedules a timer, should not effect
> the scheduler's decision to run a given thread, if the thread is
> runnable.
> 
> Whenever we run a VCPU thread, we look at its timer state (in software)
> and calculate if the guest should see a timer interrupt and inject such
> a one (the hardware arch timer is not involved in this process at all).
> 
> We use timers in exactly two scenarios:
> 
>  1. The hardware arch timers are used to force an exit to the host when
>     the guest programmed the timer, so we can do the calculation in
>     software I mentioned above and inject a virtual software-generated
>     interrupt when the guest expects to see one.
> 
>  2. The guest goes to sleep (WFI) but has programmed a timer to be woken
>     up at some point.  KVM handles a WFI by blocking the VCPU thread,
>     which basically means making the thread interruptible and putting it
>     on a waitqueue.  In this case we schedule a software timer to make
>     the thread runnable again when the software timer fires (and the
>     scheduler runs that thread when it wants to after that).
> 
> If you have a VCPU thread from VM1 blocked, and you run a VCPU thread
> from VM2, then the VCPU thread from VM2 will program the hardware arch
> timer with the context of the VM2 VCPU thread while running, and this
> has nothing to do with the VCPU thread from VM1 at this point, because
> it relies on the host Linux time keeping infrastructure to become
> runnable some time in the future, and running a guest naturally doesn't
> mess with the host's time keeping.
> 
> Hope this helps,

Yes, definitively. Thanks for the detailed description.

  -- Daniel

-- 

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog