From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: Execute WBINVD to keep data consistency
 with assigned devices
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:56:38 +0300
Message-ID: <4C2847A6.3040500@redhat.com>
References: <1277696187-3571-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <4C281D58.9090202@redhat.com> <201006281442.35437.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Yaozu (Eddie) Dong" <eddie.dong@intel.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50836 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752593Ab0F1G4t (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:56:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <201006281442.35437.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 06/28/2010 09:42 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> +static void wbinvd_ipi(void *garbage)
>>> +{
>>> +	wbinvd();
>>> +}
>>>        
>> Like Jan mentioned, this is quite heavy.  What about a clflush() loop
>> instead?  That may take more time, but at least it's preemptible.  Of
>> course, it isn't preemptible in an IPI.
>>      
>
> I think this kind of behavior happened rarely, and most recent processor should
> have WBINVD exit which means it's an IPI... So I think it's maybe acceptable here.
>
>    

Several milliseconds of non-responsiveness may not be acceptable for 
some applications.  So I think queue_work_on() and a clflush loop is 
better than an IPI and wbinvd.

>>> +
>>>
>>>    void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>>>    {
>>>
>>> +	/* Address WBINVD may be executed by guest */
>>> +	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.iommu_domain) {
>>> +		if (kvm_x86_ops->has_wbinvd_exit())
>>> +			cpu_set(cpu, vcpu->arch.wbinvd_dirty_mask);
>>> +		else if (vcpu->cpu != -1)
>>> +			smp_call_function_single(vcpu->cpu,
>>> +					wbinvd_ipi, NULL, 1);
>>>        
>> Is there any point to doing this if !has_wbinvd_exit()?  The vcpu might
>> not have migrated in time, so the cache is flushed too late.
>>      
> For the !has_wbinvd_exit(), the instruction would be executed by guest and flush
> the current processor immediately. And we can ensure that it's clean in the last
> CPU, so we're fine.
>    

Ah, yes.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.