From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>,
den@virtuozzo.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:30:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161215143054.GC6667@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161215071840.GB7704@rkaganb.sw.ru>
2016-12-15 10:18+0300, Roman Kagan:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:29:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 14/12/2016 11:59, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>> >
>> > if ((exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT)
>> > && nested_exit_intr_ack_set(vcpu)) {
>> > - int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu);
>> > + int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu, true);
>> > WARN_ON(irq < 0);
>>
>> I think this is not needed, because all nested vmexits end with a KVM_REQ_EVENT:
I also think that it can safely be false and we could drop the parameter
from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt().
(We have injected the highest priority interrupt and put it into ISR,
raising PPR again to its level, so there should be nothing to do in
KVM_REQ_EVENT due to any TPR changes.)
>> /*
>> * the KVM_REQ_EVENT optimization bit is only on for one entry, and if
>> * we did not inject a still-pending event to L1 now because of
>> * nested_run_pending, we need to re-enable this bit.
>> */
>> if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
>> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>
> IIRC .nested_run_pending indicates we're emulating vmlaunch/vmresume and
> should not vmexit to L1, so this is not exactly "all nested vmexits"...
>
>> This would allow you to always pass false from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt to
>> kvm_get_apic_interrupt. Not sure if the additional complication in vmx.c
>> is worth the simplification in lapic.c. Radim, second opinion? :)
This patch goes for a minimal change in the non-nested case, so I would
leave nVMX optimizations for another patch.
One useless round of KVM_REQ_EVENT is not going change nested
performance by much and it is not the only thing we could improve wrt.
TPR ... I would just leave it for now and take care of it when we
* don't to update PPR at all with APICv -- it is already correct
* drop the KVM_REQ_EVENT with flex priority, because lower TPR cannot
unmask an interrupt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-15 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-14 10:59 [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT Denis Plotnikov
2016-12-14 21:36 ` Radim Krčmář
2016-12-14 22:29 ` Paolo Bonzini
[not found] ` <20161215071840.GB7704@rkaganb.sw.ru>
2016-12-15 14:30 ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-12-15 14:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-12-15 14:56 ` Roman Kagan
2016-12-18 21:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=20161215143054.GC6667@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 \
/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