Re: [PATCH 05/18] KVM: x86: hyper-v: Introduce MP_STATE_HV_INACTIVE_VTL

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Fri Sep 13, 2024 at 7:01 PM UTC, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2024, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > E.g. extract the guts of vcpu_block() to a separate helper, and then wire that
> > up to an ioctl().
> >
> > As for the RFLAGS.IF quirk, maybe handle that via a kvm_run flag?  That way,
> > userspace doesn't need to do a round-trip just to set a single bit.  E.g. I think
> > we should be able to squeeze it into "struct kvm_hyperv_exit".
> 
> It's things like the RFLAG.IF exemption that deterred me from building a
> generic interface. We might find out that the generic blocking logic
> doesn't match the expected VTL semantics and be stuck with a uAPI that
> isn't enough for VSM, nor useful for any other use-case.

That's only motivation for ensuring that we are as confident as we can reasonably
be that the uAPI we merge will work for VSM, e.g. by building out userspace and
proving that a generic ioctl() provides the necessary functionality.  If there's
no other immediate use case, then there's no reason to merge a generic ioctl()
until VSM support is imminent.  And if there is another use case, then the concern
that a generic ioctl() isn't useful obviously goes away.

> We can always introduce 'flags' I guess.
>
> Note that I'm just being cautious here, AFAICT the generic approach
> works, and I'm fine with going the "wait" ioctl.
> 
> > Actually, speaking of kvm_hyperv_exit, is there a reason we can't simply wire up
> > HVCALL_VTL_CALL and/or HVCALL_VTL_RETURN to a dedicated complete_userspace_io()
> > callback that blocks if some flag is set?  That would make it _much_ cleaner to
> > scope the RFLAGS.IF check to kvm_hyperv_exit, and would require little to no new
> > uAPI.
> 
> So IIUC, the approach is to have complete_userspace_io() block after
> re-entering HVCALL_VTL_RETURN. Then, have it exit back onto user-space
> whenever an event is made available (maybe re-using KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_WAKEUP?).

Mostly out of curiosity, why does control need to return to userspace?

> That would work, but will need something extra to be compatible with
> migration/live-update.

Gah, right, because KVM's generic ABI is that userspace must complete I/O exits
before saving/restoring state.  Yeah, having KVM automatically enter a blocking
state is probably a bad idea.