* RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Inject pending interrupt even if pending nmi exist
2016-03-22 6:41 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2016-03-22 7:55 ` Yuki Shibuya
2016-03-23 1:30 ` Yuki Shibuya
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yuki Shibuya @ 2016-03-22 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka, pbonzini@redhat.com; +Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Nobuo Yoshida
Thank you for your comments.
> From: Jan Kiszka
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:42 PM
>
> On 2016-03-22 06:28, Yuki Shibuya wrote:
> > Non maskable interrupts (NMI) are preferred to interrupts in current
> > implementation. If a NMI is pending and NMI is blocked by the result
> > of nmi_allowed(), pending interrupt is not injected and
> > enable_irq_window() is not executed, even if interrupts injection is
> > allowed.
> >
> > In old kernel (e.g. 2.6.32), schedule() is often called in NMI context.
> > In this case, interrupts are needed to execute iret that intends end
> > of NMI. The flag of blocking new NMI is not cleared until the guest
> > execute the iret, and interrupts are blocked by pending NMI. Due to
> > this, iret can't be invoked in the guest, and the guest is starved
> > until block is cleared by some events (e.g. canceling injection).
> >
> > This patch injects pending interrupts, when it's allowed, even if NMI
> > is blocked. And, if NMI pending count == 2, NMI is not blocked and an
> > interrupt is pending, NMI pending count is decremented to execute
> > enable_irq_window().
>
> The first part I understand and agree with. But the part after "And"
> worries me still: if we can simply decrement that pending counter once again
> - why can't we just clear it to 0 in the first place?
We can clear pending counter in the first place. However, in current implementation,
there is a possibility of nmi pending counter == 2. In this case, one nmi is injected
and enable_nmi_window() is executed to inject another nmi in next emulation.
In my opinion, if injectable pending interrupt does not exist, it is not necessary to
prevent above logic because we don't skip injectable pending interrupt. Therefore, I added
the second part.
>
> BTW, some inline documentation of this tricky logic would probably be good.
>
> Jan
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yuki Shibuya <shibuya.yk@ncos.nec.co.jp>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index
> > 7236bd3..1373627 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -6087,12 +6087,14 @@ static int inject_pending_event(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, bool req_int_win)
> > }
> >
> > /* try to inject new event if pending */
> > - if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending) {
> > - if (kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
> > + if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending && kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
> > + --vcpu->arch.nmi_pending;
> > + vcpu->arch.nmi_injected = true;
> > + kvm_x86_ops->set_nmi(vcpu);
> > +
> > + if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending &&
> kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)
> > + &&
> kvm_x86_ops->interrupt_allowed(vcpu))
> > --vcpu->arch.nmi_pending;
> > - vcpu->arch.nmi_injected = true;
> > - kvm_x86_ops->set_nmi(vcpu);
> > - }
> > } else if (kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)) {
> > /*
> > * Because interrupts can be injected asynchronously, we
> are
> >
>
> --
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence
> Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Inject pending interrupt even if pending nmi exist
2016-03-22 6:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2016-03-22 7:55 ` Yuki Shibuya
@ 2016-03-23 1:30 ` Yuki Shibuya
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yuki Shibuya @ 2016-03-23 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka, pbonzini@redhat.com; +Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Nobuo Yoshida
> From: Shibuya Yuki
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:55 PM
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> > From: Jan Kiszka
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:42 PM
> >
> > On 2016-03-22 06:28, Yuki Shibuya wrote:
> > > Non maskable interrupts (NMI) are preferred to interrupts in current
> > > implementation. If a NMI is pending and NMI is blocked by the result
> > > of nmi_allowed(), pending interrupt is not injected and
> > > enable_irq_window() is not executed, even if interrupts injection is
> > > allowed.
> > >
> > > In old kernel (e.g. 2.6.32), schedule() is often called in NMI context.
> > > In this case, interrupts are needed to execute iret that intends end
> > > of NMI. The flag of blocking new NMI is not cleared until the guest
> > > execute the iret, and interrupts are blocked by pending NMI. Due to
> > > this, iret can't be invoked in the guest, and the guest is starved
> > > until block is cleared by some events (e.g. canceling injection).
> > >
> > > This patch injects pending interrupts, when it's allowed, even if
> > > NMI is blocked. And, if NMI pending count == 2, NMI is not blocked
> > > and an interrupt is pending, NMI pending count is decremented to
> > > execute enable_irq_window().
> >
> > The first part I understand and agree with. But the part after "And"
> > worries me still: if we can simply decrement that pending counter once
> > again
> > - why can't we just clear it to 0 in the first place?
>
> We can clear pending counter in the first place. However, in current
> implementation, there is a possibility of nmi pending counter == 2. In this
> case, one nmi is injected and enable_nmi_window() is executed to inject
> another nmi in next emulation.
> In my opinion, if injectable pending interrupt does not exist, it is not
> necessary to prevent above logic because we don't skip injectable pending
> interrupt. Therefore, I added the second part.
>
> >
> > BTW, some inline documentation of this tricky logic would probably be
> good.
> >
Sorry I didn't understand your message correctly. I will post v2.
I plan to simply clear pending counter to 0 in second part and add
inline documentation to explain this logic.
> > Jan
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yuki Shibuya <shibuya.yk@ncos.nec.co.jp>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index
> > > 7236bd3..1373627 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -6087,12 +6087,14 @@ static int inject_pending_event(struct
> > > kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu, bool req_int_win)
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* try to inject new event if pending */
> > > - if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending) {
> > > - if (kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
> > > + if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending && kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
> > > + --vcpu->arch.nmi_pending;
> > > + vcpu->arch.nmi_injected = true;
> > > + kvm_x86_ops->set_nmi(vcpu);
> > > +
> > > + if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending &&
> > kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)
> > > + &&
> > kvm_x86_ops->interrupt_allowed(vcpu))
> > > --vcpu->arch.nmi_pending;
> > > - vcpu->arch.nmi_injected = true;
> > > - kvm_x86_ops->set_nmi(vcpu);
> > > - }
> > > } else if (kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)) {
> > > /*
> > > * Because interrupts can be injected asynchronously, we
> > are
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate
> > Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread