From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: get vmcs12 pages before checking pending interrupts
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 09:48:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200506164856.GE3329@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f91d445-c3f3-fe35-3d65-0b7e0a6ff699@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 06:00:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/05/20 17:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>
> >> The patch is a bit ad hoc, I'd rather move the whole "if
> >> (kvm_request_pending(vcpu))" from vcpu_enter_guest to vcpu_run (via a
> >> new function).
> > It might make sense to go with an ad hoc patch to get the thing fixed, then
> > worry about cleaning up the pending request crud. It'd be nice to get rid
> > of the extra nested_ops->check_events() call in kvm_vcpu_running(), as well
> > as all of the various request checks in (or triggered by) vcpu_block().
>
> Yes, I agree that there are unnecessary tests in kvm_vcpu_running() if
> requests are handled before vcpu_block and that would be a nice cleanup,
> but I'm asking about something less ambitious.
>
> Can you think of something that can go wrong if we just move all
> requests, except for KVM_REQ_EVENT, up from vcpu_enter_guest() to
> vcpu_run()? That might be more or less as ad hoc as Oliver's patch, but
> without the code duplication at least.
I believe the kvm_hv_has_stimer_pending() check in kvm_vcpu_has_events()
will get messed up, e.g. handling KVM_REQ_HV_STIMER will clear the pending
bit. No idea if that can interact with HLT though.
Everything else looks ok, but I didn't exactly do a thorough audit.
My big concern is that we'd break something and never notice because the
failure mode would be a delayed interrupt or poor performance in various
corner cases. Don't get me wrong, I'll all for hoisting request handling
out of vcpu_enter_guest(), but if we're goint to risk breaking things I'd
prefer to commit to a complete cleanup.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-06 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-05 23:22 [PATCH] kvm: x86: get vmcs12 pages before checking pending interrupts Oliver Upton
2020-05-06 12:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-05-06 15:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-05-06 16:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-05-06 16:48 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-05-06 17:19 ` Oliver Upton
2020-05-06 17:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=20200506164856.GE3329@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@google.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pshier@google.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox