From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, seanjc@google.com,
pbonzini@redhat.com, oupton@kernel.org, fuad.tabba@linux.dev,
joey.gouly@arm.com, seiden@linux.ibm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
yuzenghui@huawei.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, joe.jin@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: arm64: Reset last_steal on vCPU pid change
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 14:24:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86cxvf5zoq.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77baeb6c-1efa-45fb-8a86-46a6c76b5873@oracle.com>
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 22:29:22 +0100,
Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 1:42:20AM -0700, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 06:33:03 +0100,
> > Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
> >> index 4ceabaa4c30b..000bf49cc0fd 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
> >> @@ -32,6 +32,11 @@ void kvm_update_stolen_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +void kvm_reset_stolen_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> long kvm_hypercall_pv_features(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> {
> >> u32 feature = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu);
> >
> > Why isn't this common code? I really don't see the point in making
> > this arch-specific code. I'd expect something like this (untested):
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index ace5801a592f..3fb77360af01 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -950,6 +950,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > pid_t pid;
> > };
> >
> > +#define kvm_arch_vcpu_last_steal(v) (v)->arch.steal.last_steal
> > +
> > /*
> > * Each 'flag' is composed of a comma-separated triplet:
> > *
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index 45e784462ec6..117aeb49231a 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -4459,6 +4459,9 @@ static long kvm_vcpu_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > if (r)
> > break;
> >
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_PV_STEAL_CLOCK_GEN))
> > + kvm_arch_vcpu_last_steal(vcpu) = current->sched_info.run_delay;
> > +
> > newpid = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > write_lock(&vcpu->pid_lock);
> > vcpu->pid = newpid;
> >
> > where each architecture that implements steal time provides an
> > accessor, and the core code is in charge of the adjustment.
> >
> > It also makes sure that we don't leave any architecture behind.
> >
> Or how about making it something like below?
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_PV_STEAL_CLOCK_GEN))
> kvm_arch_vcpu_reset_last_steal(vcpu);
>
> That would still move the policy to common KVM code, while leaving the exact
> arch state to the architecture implementation.
I don't think architectures should have a say in this. Steal time, as
a PV service, should not involve the architectures at all. After all,
that's the whole point of a PV service: hypervisor-specific hacks that
do not fit in the architectural envelope.
Bonus points if you move the last_steal field in the main vcpu
structure instead of some arch-specific one.
> For x86, the hook can reset vcpu->arch.st.last_steal for regular KVM steal time.
> If we also decide to cover Xen runstate in this series, the same x86 hook can
> additionally reset vcpu->arch.xen.last_steal.
For arch-specific stuff, there is the pid change hook already.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-18 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-16 5:33 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: Reset steal time accounting on vCPU pid change (x86 and arm64) Dongli Zhang
2026-08-16 5:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86: Reset last_steal on vCPU pid change Dongli Zhang
2026-08-16 5:33 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: arm64: " Dongli Zhang
2026-08-17 8:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-08-17 21:29 ` Dongli Zhang
2026-08-18 13:24 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2026-08-16 5:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: selftests: Test steal time across vCPU pid changes on x86 Dongli Zhang
2026-08-16 5:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: selftests: Add arm64 coverage for steal time pid changes Dongli Zhang
2026-08-17 8:15 ` [PATCH 0/4] KVM: Reset steal time accounting on vCPU pid change (x86 and arm64) Marc Zyngier
2026-08-17 21:05 ` Dongli Zhang
2026-08-17 11:51 ` David Woodhouse
2026-08-17 22:04 ` Dongli Zhang
2026-08-17 22:23 ` David Woodhouse
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=86cxvf5zoq.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=dongli.zhang@oracle.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=fuad.tabba@linux.dev \
--cc=joe.jin@oracle.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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