Re: [PATCH 03/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: handle the request_immediate_exit variation

Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23T23:45:03Z

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:06:26PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > request_immediate_exit is one of those few cases where the pointer to
> > > function of the method isn't fixed at build time and it requires
> > > special handling because hardware_setup() may override it at runtime.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx_ops.c | 5 ++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx_ops.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx_ops.c
> > > index cdcad73935d9..25d441432901 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx_ops.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx_ops.c
> > > @@ -498,7 +498,10 @@ int kvm_x86_ops_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool external_intr)
> > >
> > > void kvm_x86_ops_request_immediate_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > - vmx_request_immediate_exit(vcpu);
> > > + if (likely(enable_preemption_timer))
> > > + vmx_request_immediate_exit(vcpu);
> > > + else
> > > + __kvm_request_immediate_exit(vcpu);
> >
> > Rather than wrap this in VMX code, what if we instead take advantage of a
> > monolithic module and add an inline to query enable_preemption_timer?
> > That'd likely save a few CALL/RET/JMP instructions and eliminate
> > __kvm_request_immediate_exit.
> >
> > E.g. something like:
> >
> > if (req_immediate_exit) {
> > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> > if (kvm_x86_has_request_immediate_exit())
> > kvm_x86_request_immediate_exit(vcpu);
> > else
> > smp_send_reschedule(vcpu->cpu);
> > }
>
> Yes, I mentioned the inlining possibilities in part of comment of
> 2/17:
>
> ===
> Further incremental minor optimizations that weren't possible before
> are now enabled by the monolithic model. For example it would be
> possible later to convert some of the small external methods to inline
> functions from the {svm,vmx}_ops.c file to kvm_ops.h. However that
> will require more Makefile tweaks.
> ===

With a straight rename to kvm_x86_<function>() instead of wrappers, we
shouldn't need kvm_ops.c. kvm_ops.h might be helpful, but it'd be just
as easy to keep them in kvm_host.h and would likely yield a more
insightful diff[*].

> To implement your kvm_x86_has_request_immediate_exit() we need more
> Makefile tweaking, basically we need a -D__SVM__ -D__VMX__ kind of
> thing so we can put an #ifdef __SVM__ in the kvm_ops.h equivalent to
> put inline code there. Or some other better solution if you think of
> any, that was my only idea so far with regard to inlining.

Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of extending the kvm_host.h
pattern down into vendor specific code, e.g. arch/x86/kvm/vmx/kvm_host.h.
Probably with a different name though, two of those is confusing enough.

It'd still need Makefile changes, but we wouldn't litter the code with
#ifdefs. Future enhancments can also take advantage of the per-vendor
header to inline other things. Such a header would also make it possible
to fully remove kvm_x86_ops in this series (I think).

[*] Tying into the thought above, if we go for a straight rename and
eliminate the conditionally-implemented kvm_x86_ops ahead of time,
e.g. with inlines that return -EINVAL or something, then the
conversion to direct calls can be a straight replacement of
"kvm_x86_ops->" with "kvm_x86_" at the same time the declarations
are changed from members of kvm_x86_ops to externs.

Actually, typing out the above made me realize the immediate exit code
can be:

if (req_immediate_exit) {
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
if (kvm_x86_request_immediate_exit(vcpu))
smp_send_reschedule(vcpu->cpu);
}

Where kvm_x86_request_immediate_exit() returns 0 on success, e.g. the SVM
implementation can be "return -EINVAL" or whatever is appropriate, which
I assume the compiler can optimize out. Or maybe a boolean return is
better in this case?