From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: Kick VCPUs when queueing already pending IRQs
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:35:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161028083500.GA12739@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1477580893-3479-1-git-send-email-shihwei@cs.columbia.edu>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:08:13PM +0000, Shih-Wei Li wrote:
> In cases like IPI, we could be queueing an interrupt for a VCPU
> that is already running and is not about to exit, because the
> VCPU has entered the VM with the interrupt pending and would
> not trap on EOI'ing that interrupt. This could result to delays
> in interrupt deliveries or even loss of interrupts.
> To guarantee prompt interrupt injection, here we have to try to
> kick the VCPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@cs.columbia.edu>
> ---
>
> I've tested the code with an IPI test built on kvm-unit-test, which
> measures the cycles spent between one VCPU sending IPI to a target
> VCPU that busy loops in the VM, until the target VCPU ACKs and EOIs
> the IPI. The patch here can improve the performance in such case by
> more than 5000 cycles.
>
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> index b419a11..07cf239 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> @@ -273,6 +273,17 @@ retry:
> * no more work for us to do.
> */
> spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the VCPU is not NULL, we could be queueing an
> + * edge-triggered interrupt for a VCPU which is already
> + * running and is not about to exit, because the VCPU has
> + * entered the VM with the interrupt pending and it wouldn't
> + * trap on EOI. To ensure prompt delivery of that interrupt,
> + * we have to try to kick the VCPU.
> + */
Perhaps the following comment is a better description:
/*
* We have to kick the VCPU here, because we could be queueing
* an edge-triggered interrupt for which we get no EOI
* maintenance interrupt. In that case, while the IRQ is
* already on the VCPU's AP list, the VCPU could have EOI'ed the
* original interrupt and won't see this one until it exits for
* some other reason.
*/
> + if (vcpu)
> + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> return false;
> }
>
Otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-28 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-27 15:08 [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: Kick VCPUs when queueing already pending IRQs Shih-Wei Li
2016-10-28 8:35 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
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=20161028083500.GA12739@cbox \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).