From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: "Longpeng (Mike,
Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)"
<longpeng2@huawei.com>
Cc: "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>,
Huangzhichao <huangzhichao@huawei.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: The vcpu won't be wakened for a long time
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:27:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YcHyReHoF+qjIVTy@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a1a3ac75a6e4acf9bd1ce9779835e1c@huawei.com>
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
> > Hmm, that strongly suggests the "vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu()" is at fault.
> > Can you try running with the below commit? It's currently sitting in kvm/queue,
> > but not marked for stable because I didn't think it was possible for the check
> > to a cause a missed wake event in KVM's current code base.
> >
>
> The below commit can fix the bug, we have just completed the tests.
> Thanks.
Aha! Somehow I missed this call chain when analyzing the change.
irqfd_wakeup()
|
|->kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic()
|
|-> kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast()
|
|-> kvm_apic_set_irq()
Paolo, can the changelog be amended to the below, and maybe even pull the commit
into 5.16?
KVM: VMX: Wake vCPU when delivering posted IRQ even if vCPU == this vCPU
Drop a check that guards triggering a posted interrupt on the currently
running vCPU, and more importantly guards waking the target vCPU if
triggering a posted interrupt fails because the vCPU isn't IN_GUEST_MODE.
If a vIRQ is delivered from asynchronous context, the target vCPU can be
the currently running vCPU and can also be blocking, in which case
skipping kvm_vcpu_wake_up() is effectively dropping what is supposed to
be a wake event for the vCPU.
The "do nothing" logic when "vcpu == running_vcpu" mostly works only
because the majority of calls to ->deliver_posted_interrupt(), especially
when using posted interrupts, come from synchronous KVM context. But if
a device is exposed to the guest using vfio-pci passthrough, the VFIO IRQ
and vCPU are bound to the same pCPU, and the IRQ is _not_ configured to
use posted interrupts, wake events from the device will be delivered to
KVM from IRQ context, e.g.
vfio_msihandler()
|
|-> eventfd_signal()
|
|-> ...
|
|-> irqfd_wakeup()
|
|->kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic()
|
|-> kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast()
|
|-> kvm_apic_set_irq()
This also aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.
Fixes: 379a3c8ee444 ("KVM: VMX: Optimize posted-interrupt delivery for timer fastpath")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Longpeng (Mike) <longpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20211208015236.1616697-18-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > commit 6a8110fea2c1b19711ac1ef718680dfd940363c6
> > Author: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > Date: Wed Dec 8 01:52:27 2021 +0000
> >
> > KVM: VMX: Wake vCPU when delivering posted IRQ even if vCPU == this vCPU
> >
> > Drop a check that guards triggering a posted interrupt on the currently
> > running vCPU, and more importantly guards waking the target vCPU if
> > triggering a posted interrupt fails because the vCPU isn't IN_GUEST_MODE.
> > The "do nothing" logic when "vcpu == running_vcpu" works only because KVM
> > doesn't have a path to ->deliver_posted_interrupt() from asynchronous
> > context, e.g. if apic_timer_expired() were changed to always go down the
> > posted interrupt path for APICv, or if the IN_GUEST_MODE check in
> > kvm_use_posted_timer_interrupt() were dropped, and the hrtimer fired in
> > kvm_vcpu_block() after the final kvm_vcpu_check_block() check, the vCPU
> > would be scheduled() out without being awakened, i.e. would "miss" the
> > timer interrupt.
> >
> > One could argue that invoking kvm_apic_local_deliver() from (soft) IRQ
> > context for the current running vCPU should be illegal, but nothing in
> > KVM actually enforces that rules. There's also no strong obvious benefit
> > to making such behavior illegal, e.g. checking IN_GUEST_MODE and calling
> > kvm_vcpu_wake_up() is at worst marginally more costly than querying the
> > current running vCPU.
> >
> > Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
> > interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> > Message-Id: <20211208015236.1616697-18-seanjc@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 38749063da0e..f61a6348cffd 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -3995,8 +3995,7 @@ static int vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu, int vector)
> > * guaranteed to see PID.ON=1 and sync the PIR to IRR if triggering a
> > * posted interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE.
> > */
> > - if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu() &&
> > - !kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> > + if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> > kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
> >
> > return 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-21 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-14 13:55 The vcpu won't be wakened for a long time Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2021-12-14 17:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-16 14:03 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2021-12-16 15:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-17 2:11 ` Wanpeng Li
2021-12-17 5:51 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2021-12-18 9:08 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2021-12-21 15:27 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-12-21 15:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-22 6:07 ` Chao Gao
2021-12-22 15:44 ` Sean Christopherson
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=YcHyReHoF+qjIVTy@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=arei.gonglei@huawei.com \
--cc=huangzhichao@huawei.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longpeng2@huawei.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.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