From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: bibo mao <maobibo@loongson.cn>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@loongson.cn>,
loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] LoongArch: KVM: Handle interrupt early before enabling irq
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:09:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-QYwWxhBH_nvmWH@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c220d043-2314-85bb-e99d-dc2c609aa739@loongson.cn>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, bibo mao wrote:
> Hi Paolo, Sean
>
> This idea comes from x86, do you have any guidance or suggestion about it?
>
> Also I notice that there is such irq_enable()/irq_disable() pair on x86, I
> do not know why it is so.
Because on AMD (SVM), IRQ VM-Exits don't consume the IRQ, i.e. the exit is purely
a notification. KVM still needs to enable IRQs to actually handle the pending IRQ.
And if the IRQ that triggered VM-Exit is for the host's tick, then it's desirable
to handle the tick IRQ before guest_timing_exit_irqoff() so that the timeslice is
accounted to the guest, not the host (the tick IRQ arrived while the guest was
active).
On Intel (VMX), KVM always runs in a mode where the VM-Exit acknowledge/consumes
the IRQ, and so KVM _must_ manually call into the appropriate interrupt handler.
> local_irq_enable();
> ++vcpu->stat.exits;
> local_irq_disable();
> guest_timing_exit_irqoff();
> local_irq_enable();
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>
> On 2025/3/11 下午3:47, Bibo Mao wrote:
> > If interrupt arrive when vCPU is running, vCPU will exit because of
> > interrupt exception. Currently interrupt exception is handled after
> > local_irq_enable() is called, and it is handled by host kernel rather
> > than KVM hypervisor. It will introduce extra another interrupt
> > exception and then host will handle irq.
> >
> > If KVM hypervisor detect that it is interrupt exception, interrupt
> > can be handle early in KVM hypervisor before local_irq_enable() is
> > called.
The correctness of this depends on how LoongArch virtualization processes IRQs.
If the IRQ is consumed by the VM-Exit, then manually handling the IRQ early is
both optimal and necessary for correctness. If the IRQ is NOT consumed by the
VM-Exit, then manually calling the interrupt handler from KVM will result in every
IRQ effectively happening twice: once on the manual call, and against when KVM
enables IRQs and the "real" IRQ fires.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-26 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-11 7:47 [RFC V2] LoongArch: KVM: Handle interrupt early before enabling irq Bibo Mao
2025-03-25 2:13 ` bibo mao
2025-03-26 15:09 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-03-27 3:16 ` bibo mao
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=Z-QYwWxhBH_nvmWH@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=zhaotianrui@loongson.cn \
/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