Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Put struct kvm_vcpu on a diet

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 16.02.23 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I'm not necessarily opposed to such aggressive optimization, but the ROI is likely
> > very, very low.  For optimized workloads, there simply aren't very many VM-Exits,
> > e.g. the majority of exits on a modern CPU are due to timer ticks.  And even those
> > will hopefully be eliminiated in the not-too-distant future, e.g. by having hardware
> > virtualize the TSC deadline timer, and by moving to a vCPU scheduling scheme that
> > allows for a tickless host.
> 
> Well, for guests running grsecurity kernels, there's also the CR0.WP
> toggling triggering VMEXITs, which happens a lot! -- at least until
> something along the lines of [1] gets merged *hint ;)*

Ha!  It's high on my todo list for 6.4, catching up on other stuff at the moment.

That series is also _exactly_ why the ROI for aggressive cache line optimization
is low.  The better long term answer is almost always to avoid the VM-Exit in the
first place, or failing that, to handle the exit in a fastpath.  Sometimes it takes
a few years, e.g. to get necessary hardware support, but x86 virtualization is fast
approaching the point where anything remotely performance critical is handled entirely
within the guest.