From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zheyun Shen <szy0127@sjtu.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: SVM: don't check have_run_cpus in sev_writeback_caches()
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:31:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJphP1UPVs9qVe_0@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJpe6GM_3edwJXuX@google.com>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:21:44PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 01:50:15PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > From: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Before calling wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask(), the function checks the cpumask
> > > > for emptiness. It's useless, as the following wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask()
> > > > ends up with smp_call_function_many_cond(), which handles empty cpumask
> > > > correctly.
> > >
> > > I don't agree that it's useless. The early check avoids disabling/enabling
> > > preemption (which is cheap, but still), and IMO it makes the KVM code more obviously
> > > correct. E.g. it takes quite a bit of digging to understand that invoking
> > > wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask() with an empty mask is ok/fine.
> > >
> > > I'm not completely opposed to this change, but I also don't see the point.
> >
> > So, there's a tradeoff between useless preemption cycling, which is
> > O(1) and cpumask_empty(), which is O(N).
>
> Oh, that argument I buy. I had it in my head that the check is going to be O(1)
> in practice, because never running vCPU0 would be all kinds of bizarre. But the
> mask tracks physical CPUs, not virtual CPUs. E.g. a 2-vCPU VM that's pinned to
> the last 2 pCPUs in the system could indeed trigger several superfluous loads and
> checks.
>
> > I have no measurements that can support one vs another. But the
> > original patch doesn't discuss it anyhow, as well. So, with the
> > lack of any information on performance impact, I'd stick with the
> > version that brings less code.
> >
> > Agree?
>
> Not sure I agree that less code is always better, but I do agree that dropping
> the check makes sense. :-)
>
> How about this? No need for a v2 (unless you disagree on the tweaks), I'll happily
> fixup when applying.
Sure deal! Thanks.
> --
> From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:30:39 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: SEV: don't check have_run_cpus in sev_writeback_caches()
>
> Drop KVM's check on an empty cpumask when flushing caches when memory is
> being reclaimed from an SEV VM, as smp_call_function_many_cond() naturally
> (and correctly) handles and empty cpumask. This avoids an extra O(n)
> lookup in the common case where at least one pCPU has enterred the guest,
> which could be noticeable in some setups, e.g. if a small VM is pinned to
> the last few pCPUs in the system.
>
> Fixes: 6f38f8c57464 ("KVM: SVM: Flush cache only on CPUs running SEV guest")
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> [sean: rewrite changelog to capture performance angle]
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> index 2fbdebf79fbb..0635bd71c10e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> @@ -718,13 +718,6 @@ static void sev_clflush_pages(struct page *pages[], unsigned long npages)
>
> static void sev_writeback_caches(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> - /*
> - * Note, the caller is responsible for ensuring correctness if the mask
> - * can be modified, e.g. if a CPU could be doing VMRUN.
> - */
> - if (cpumask_empty(to_kvm_sev_info(kvm)->have_run_cpus))
> - return;
> -
> /*
> * Ensure that all dirty guest tagged cache entries are written back
> * before releasing the pages back to the system for use. CLFLUSH will
> @@ -739,6 +732,9 @@ static void sev_writeback_caches(struct kvm *kvm)
> * serializing multiple calls and having responding CPUs (to the IPI)
> * mark themselves as still running if they are running (or about to
> * run) a vCPU for the VM.
> + *
> + * Note, the caller is responsible for ensuring correctness if the mask
> + * can be modified, e.g. if a CPU could be doing VMRUN.
> */
> wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask(to_kvm_sev_info(kvm)->have_run_cpus);
> }
>
> base-commit: 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585
> --
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-11 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-11 20:30 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: SVM: fixes for SEV Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: SVM: don't check have_run_cpus in sev_writeback_caches() Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:05 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-11 21:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:31 ` Yury Norov [this message]
2025-08-11 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: SVM: drop useless cpumask_test_cpu() in pre_sev_run() Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:28 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-11 22:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-14 0:42 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-19 23:11 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM: SVM: fixes for SEV 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=aJphP1UPVs9qVe_0@yury \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=szy0127@sjtu.edu.cn \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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