Re: [PATCH 4/9] KVM: Adds ability to preempt an executingVCPU

Gregory Haskins
2007-05-09T23:39:46Z

>>> On Wed, May 9, 2007 at 6:28 PM, in message
<64F9B87B6B770947A9F8391472E032160BBA6490-yEcIvxbTEBqsx+V+t5oei8rau4O3wl8o3fe8/T/H7NteoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
"Dor Laor" <dor.laor-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>>----- Original Message-----
>>From: kvm- devel- bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:kvm- devel-
>>bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Haskins
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:19 PM
>>To: kvm- devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>>Subject: [kvm- devel] [PATCH 4/9] KVM: Adds ability to preempt an
>>executingVCPU
>>
>>The VCPU executes synchronously w.r.t. userspace today, and therefore
>>interrupt injection is pretty straight forward. However, we will soon
> need
>>to be able to inject interrupts asynchronous to the execution of the
> VCPU
>>due to the introduction of SMP, paravirtualized drivers, and
> asynchronous
>>hypercalls. This patch adds support to the interrupt mechanism to
> force
>>a VCPU to VMEXIT when a new interrupt is pending.
>>
>>Signed- off- by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins-Et1tbQHTxzrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>---
>>
>> drivers/kvm/kvm.h | 2 ++
>> drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 59
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/kvm/svm.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/kvm/vmx.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletions(- )
>>
>>diff -- git a/drivers/kvm/kvm.h b/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
>>index 059f074..0f6cc32 100644
>>--- a/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
>>+++ b/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
>>@@ - 329,6 +329,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_irq {
>> struct kvm_irqdevice dev;
>> int pending;
>> int deferred;
>>+ struct task_struct *task;
>>+ int guest_mode;
>> };
>>
>> struct kvm_vcpu {
>>diff -- git a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>index 199489b..a160638 100644
>>--- a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>+++ b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>@@ - 1868,6 +1868,9 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
>>struct kvm_run *kvm_run)
>> kvm_arch_ops- >decache_regs(vcpu);
>> }
>>
>>+ vcpu- >irq.task = current;
>>+ smp_wmb();
>>+
>> r = kvm_arch_ops- >run(vcpu, kvm_run);
>>
>> out:
>>@@ - 2309,6 +2312,20 @@ out1:
>> }
>>
>> /*
>>+ * This function is invoked whenever we want to interrupt a vcpu that
> is
>>+ * currently executing in guest- mode. It currently is a no- op because
>>+ * the simple delivery of the IPI to execute this function
> accomplishes
>>our
>>+ * goal: To cause a VMEXIT. We pass the vcpu (which contains the
>>+ * vcpu- >irq.task, etc) for future use
>>+ */
>>+static void kvm_vcpu_guest_intr(void *info)
>>+{
>>+#ifdef NOT_YET
>>+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = (struct kvm_vcpu*)info;
>>+#endif
>>+}
>>+
>>+/*
>> * This function will be invoked whenever the vcpu- >irq.dev raises its
>>INTR
>> * line
>> */
>>@@ - 2318,10 +2335,50 @@ static void kvm_vcpu_intr(struct kvm_irqsink
> *this,
>> {
>> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = (struct kvm_vcpu*)this- >private;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>+ int direct_ipi = - 1;
>>
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&vcpu- >irq.lock, flags);
>>- __set_bit(pin, &vcpu- >irq.pending);
>>+
>>+ if (!test_bit(pin, &vcpu- >irq.pending)) {
>>+ /*
>>+ * Record the change..
>>+ */
>>+ __set_bit(pin, &vcpu- >irq.pending);
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * then wake up the vcpu (if necessary)
>>+ */
>>+ if (vcpu- >irq.task && (vcpu- >irq.task != current)) {
>>+ if (vcpu- >irq.guest_mode) {
>>+ /*
>>+ * If we are in guest mode, we can
> optimize
>>+ * the IPI by executing a function
> directly
>>+ * on the owning processor.
>>+ */
>>+ direct_ipi = task_cpu(vcpu- >irq.task);
>>+ BUG_ON(direct_ipi ==
> smp_processor_id());
>>+ }
>>+ }
>>+ }
>>+
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vcpu- >irq.lock, flags);
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * we can safely send the IPI outside of the lock- scope because
> the
>>+ * irq.pending has already been updated. This code assumes that
>>+ * userspace will not sleep on anything other than HLT
> instructions.
>>+ * HLT is covered in a race- free way because irq.pending was
> updated
>>+ * in the critical section, and handle_halt() which check if any
>>+ * interrupts are pending before returning to userspace.
>>+ *
>>+ * If it turns out that userspace can sleep on conditions other
> than
>>+ * HLT, this code will need to be enhanced to allow the
> irq.pending
>>+ * flags to be exported to userspace
>>+ */
>>+ if (direct_ipi != - 1)
>>+ smp_call_function_single(direct_ipi,
>>+ kvm_vcpu_guest_intr,
>>+ vcpu, 0, 0);
>> }
>>
>> static void kvm_vcpu_irqsink_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>diff -- git a/drivers/kvm/svm.c b/drivers/kvm/svm.c
>>index 4c03881..91546ae 100644
>>--- a/drivers/kvm/svm.c
>>+++ b/drivers/kvm/svm.c
>>@@ - 1542,11 +1542,40 @@ static int svm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>struct kvm_run *kvm_run)
>> u16 gs_selector;
>> u16 ldt_selector;
>> int r;
>>+ unsigned long irq_flags;
>>
>> again:
>>+ /*
>>+ * We disable interrupts until the next VMEXIT to eliminate a
> race
>>+ * condition for delivery of virtual interrutps. Note that this
> is
>>+ * probably not as bad as it sounds, as interrupts will still
> invoke
>>+ * a VMEXIT once transitioned to GUEST mode (and thus exit this
> lock
>>+ * scope) even if they are disabled.
>>+ *
>>+ * FIXME: Do we need to do anything additional to mask IPI/NMIs?
>>+ */
>>+ local_irq_save(irq_flags);
>>+
>> spin_lock(&vcpu- >irq.lock);
>>
>> /*
>>+ * If there are any signals pending (virtual interrupt related
> or
>>+ * otherwise), don't even bother trying to enter guest mode...
>>+ */
>>+ if (signal_pending(current)) {
>>+ kvm_run- >exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_INTR;
>>+ spin_unlock(&vcpu- >irq.lock);
>>+ local_irq_restore(irq_flags);
>>+ return - EINTR;
>>+ }
>
>
> A possible optimization would be to check if we have an irq to inject.
> If we have, then ignore the signal and enter guest mode.
> Since an irq is already pending, the signal would not be resulting in
> another irq injection.
> What do you think?

I am a little fuzzy on whether this is necessary myself. The motivation for this code block originally was really more for the cases where signals are sent that *aren't* related to interrupts. For instance, what if QEMU was trying to force the vCPU to exit for some reason (e.g. an AIO completion event that has to be decoded by userspace before a IRQ is generated)? If the signal is queued beforehand AND linux doesn't already reschedule things for us, I think there is a race against the VCPU being stuck in guest mode until the next (unrelated) VMEXIT since the IPI would have already happened. This code (I believe) closes the window on that scenario. I am just not sure if its a realistic one. Perhaps someone with more linux signal handling knowledge than myself can chime in and confirm? (And I am not saying that person isn't you, Dor. I am only saying it isn't me ;)

>
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * There are optimizations we can make when signaling interrupts
>>+ * if we know the VCPU is in GUEST mode, so mark that here
>>+ */
>>+ vcpu- >irq.guest_mode = 1;
>>+
>>+ /*
>> * We must inject interrupts (if any) while the irq_lock
>> * is held
>> */
>>@@ - 1688,6 +1717,13 @@ again:
>> #endif
>> : "cc", "memory" );
>>
>>+ /*
>>+ * FIXME: We'd like to turn on interrupts ASAP, but is this so
> early
>>+ * that we will mess up the state of the CPU before we fully
>>+ * transition from guest to host?
>>+ */
>
> The guest_mode can be assigned here, thus eliminating the cli- sti below.

Yeah....I was concerned about putting too much logic before the guest/host state transfer because I didn't know enough about it to know if I would stomp on some register that still hadn't been saved. If you say its safe to do that here, then I agree that is the optimal way to do it.