RE: [PATCH v5 07/10] Drivers: hv: Introduce per-cpu event ring tail

Michael Kelley
2025-03-07T23:37:04Z

From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 3:21 PM
>
> From: Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@linux.microsoft.com> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025
> 2:07 PM
> >

[snip]

> > >> @@ -485,6 +504,17 @@ int hv_common_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > >> *outputarg = (char *)mem + HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> + if (hv_root_partition()) {
> > >> + synic_eventring_tail = (u8 **)this_cpu_ptr(hv_synic_eventring_tail);
> > >> + *synic_eventring_tail = kcalloc(HV_SYNIC_SINT_COUNT,
> > >> + sizeof(u8), flags);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (unlikely(!*synic_eventring_tail)) {
> > >> + kfree(mem);
> > >> + return -ENOMEM;
> > >> + }
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >
> > > Adding this code under the "if(!*inputarg)" implicitly ties the lifecycle of
> > > synic_eventring_tail to the lifecycle of hyperv_pcpu_input_arg and
> > > hyperv_pcpu_output_arg. Is there some logical relationship between the
> > > two that warrants tying the lifecycles together (other than just both being
> > > per-cpu)? hyperv_pcpu_input_arg and hyperv_pcpu_output_arg have an
> > > unusual lifecycle management in that they aren't freed when a CPU goes
> > > offline, as described in the comment in hv_common_cpu_die(). Does
> > > synic_eventring_tail also need that same unusual lifecycle?
> > >
> > I thought about it, and no I don't think it shares the same exact lifecycle.
> > It's only used by the mshv_root driver - it just needs to remain present
> > whenever there's a chance the module could be re-inserted and expect it to
> > be there.
> >
> > > Assuming there's no logical relationship, I'm thinking synic_eventring_tail
> > > should be managed independent of the other two. If it does need the
> > > unusual lifecycle, make sure to add a comment in hv_common_cpu_die()
> > > explaining why. If it doesn't need the unusual lifecycle, maybe just do
> > > the normal thing of allocating it in hv_common_cpu_init() and freeing
> > > it in hv_common_cpu_die().
> > >
> > Yep, I suppose it should just be freed normally then, assuming
> > hv_common_cpu_die() is only called when the hypervisor is going to reset
> > (or remove) the synic pages for this partition. Is that the case here?
> >
>
> Yes, it is the case here. A particular vCPU can be taken offline
> independent of other vCPUs in the VM (such as by writing "0"
> to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<nn>/online). When that happens
> the vCPU going offline runs hv_synic_cleanup() first, and then it
> runs hv_cpu_die(), which calls hv_common_cpu_die(). So by the
> time hv_common_cpu_die() runs, the synic_message_page and
> synic_event_page will have been unmapped and the pointers set
> to NULL.
>
> On arm64, there is no hv_cpu_init()/die(), and the "common"
> versions are called directly. Perhaps at some point in the future there
> will be arm64 specific things to be done, and hv_cpu_init()/die()
> will need to be added. But the ordering is the same and
> hv_synic_cleanup() runs first.
>
> So, yes, since synic_eventring_tail is tied to the synic, it sounds like
> the normal lifecycle could be used, like with the VP assist page that
> is handled in hv_cpu_init()/die() on x86.
>

One more thought:

Perhaps there's more affinity with synic code than with generic
per-cpu memory, and it would be even better to allocate and
free the synic_eventring_tail memory for each vCPU in
hv_synic_init()/cleanup(), or hv_synic_enable/disable_regs().
There's potentially some interaction with hibernate suspend/resume,
which I assume isn't a valid scenario for the root partition. But I
haven't thought through all the details.

Michael