From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: rkagan@virtuozzo.com, den@virtuozzo.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
svt-core@lists.sw.ru, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:29:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161212162943.GA2237@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161212140223.277077-1-dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
2016-12-12 17:02+0300, Denis Plotnikov:
> When processing KVM_REQ_EVENT, apic_update_ppr is called which may set
> KVM_REQ_EVENT again if the recalculated value of PPR becomes smaller
> than the previous one. This results in cancelling the guest entry and
> reiterating in vcpu_enter_guest.
>
> However this is unnecessary because at this point KVM_REQ_EVENT is
> already being processed and there are no other changes in the lapic
> that may require full-fledged state recalculation.
>
> This situation is often hit on systems with TPR shadow, where the
> TPR can be updated by the guest without a vmexit, so that the first
> apic_update_ppr to notice it is exactly the one called while
> processing KVM_REQ_EVENT.
>
> To avoid it, introduce a parameter in apic_update_ppr allowing to
> suppress setting of KVM_REQ_EVENT, and use it on the paths called from
> KVM_REQ_EVENT processing.
We also call:
kvm_cpu_get_interrupt() in nested_vmx_vmexit()
- that path is intended without KVM_REQ_EVENT
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in vmx_check_nested_events(),
- I think it does no harm
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_has_events()
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection()
- both seem safe as we should not have an interrupt between TPR
threshold and the new PPR value, so the KVM_REQ_EVENT was useless.
I would prefer we made sure that only callers from KVM_REQ_EVENT used
the function we are changing -- it is really easy to make a hard-to-find
mistake in interrupt delivery.
> This microoptimization gives 10% performance increase on a synthetic
> test doing a lot of IPC in Windows using window messages.
>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
> Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
Still, there is a high possibility that this is going to work,
Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-12 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 14:02 [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT Denis Plotnikov
2016-12-12 16:29 ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-12-12 20:20 ` Roman Kagan
2016-12-13 15:16 ` Radim Krčmář
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=20161212162943.GA2237@potion \
--to=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=den@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkagan@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=svt-core@lists.sw.ru \
/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