On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:58:10 +0100, Gavin Shan gshan@redhat.com wrote:
On 9/18/22 7:00 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:09:52 +0100, Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:51:31PM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
This adds KVM_REQ_RING_SOFT_FULL, which is raised when the dirty ring of the specific VCPU becomes softly full in kvm_dirty_ring_push(). The VCPU is enforced to exit when the request is raised and its dirty ring is softly full on its entrance.
Suggested-by: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan gshan@redhat.com
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 +++-- include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 + virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c | 4 ++++ 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index 43a6a7efc6ec..7f368f59f033 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c @@ -10265,8 +10265,9 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) bool req_immediate_exit = false; /* Forbid vmenter if vcpu dirty ring is soft-full */
- if (unlikely(vcpu->kvm->dirty_ring_size &&
kvm_dirty_ring_soft_full(&vcpu->dirty_ring))) {
- if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_RING_SOFT_FULL, vcpu) &&
kvm_dirty_ring_soft_full(&vcpu->dirty_ring)) {kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RING_SOFT_FULL, vcpu);As commented previously - can we use kvm_test_request() instead? because we don't want to unconditionally clear the bit. Instead of making the request again, we can clear request only if !full.
I have the feeling that this is a micro-optimisation that won't lead to much benefit in practice. You already have the cache line, just not in exclusive mode, and given that this is per-vcpu, you'd only see the cost if someone else is setting a request to this vcpu while evaluating the local requests.
And now you need extra barriers...
Also, can we please refrain from changing things without data showing that this actually is worse than what we had before? The point below makes me think that this is actually beneficial as is.
I think Marc's explanation makes sense. It won't make difference in terms of performance. We need to explicitly handle barrier when kvm_test_request() is used. So I prefer to keep the code if Peter agrees.
We can also safely move this into the block of below kvm_request_pending() as Marc used to suggest.
This, on the other hand, makes sure that we share the cost across all requests. Requests should be extremely rare anyway (and if they aren't, you have a whole lot of performance issues on your hands anyway).
Yeah, We shouldn't have too much requests. I missed the comment from Marc to move this chunk to kvm_request_pending(). I will fix it in v3.
To explicitly use kvm_clear_request(), we may need to be careful on the memory barriers. I'm wondering whether we should have moved smp_mb__after_atomic() into kvm_clear_request() because kvm_clear_request() is used outside kvm_check_request() and IIUC all the call sites should better have that barrier too to be safe.
Side note: when I read the code around I also see some mis-use of clear request where it can be omitted, e.g.:
if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu)) { kvm_clear_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu); vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_IRQ_WINDOW_OPEN; }Maybe it's a sign of bad naming, so we should renamed kvm_check_request() to kvm_test_clear_request() too to show that clearing after that is not needed?
Yeah, this kvm_clear_request() is superfluous. But this is rather well documented, for once, and I don't think we should repaint it based on a sample of one.
Yeah, I think Peter is correct that smp_mb__after_atomic() would be part of kvm_clear_request(). Otherwise, the following two cases aren't in same order:
// kvm_check_request() // test and clear kvm_test_request() kvm_test_request() kvm_clear_request() kvm_clear_request() smp_mb__after_atomic()
[fixing Drew's email, again]
Oh, I totally agree that a standalone use of kvm_clear_request() must come with a barrier. It is just that without additional data, it isn't obvious to me that there is any need for kvm_clear_request() itself to have the barrier.
In a number of cases, kvm_clear_request() is used on in the context of the same vcpu, and this should be enough to ensure visibility (for example, I don't think kvm_vcpu_wfi() should require this barrier).
But maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks,
M.