[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: X86: implement the logic for spinlock optimization
On 07/08/2017 14:28, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
> * kvm_arch_spin_in_kernel() returns whether the vcpu (which exits due to
> spinlock) is CPL=0. It only be called by kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), and the
> input vcpu is 'me' which get a PAUSE exit now. *
> I split kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(in RFC) into two functions:
> kvm_arch_spin_in_kernel and kvm_arch_preempt_in_kernel
> Because of KVM/VMX L1 never set CPU_BASED_PAUSE_EXITING and only set
> SECONDARY_EXEC_PAUSE_LOOP_EXITING if supported, so for L1:

I understand better now. I think vmx.c should just return true from
vmx_spin_in_kernel. However, kvm_arch_vcpu_spin_in_kernel is not
necessary. Instead you should make "in_kern" an argument to
kvm_vcpu_on_spin (maybe renamed to "yield_to_kernel_mode_vcpu").

Then vmx.c can just call "kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu, true)".

> 1. get a PAUSE exit with CPL=0 if PLE is supported
> 2. never get a PAUSE exit if don't support PLE
> So, I think it can direct return true(CPL=0) if supports PLE.
> But for nested KVM/VMX(I'm not familiar with nested), it could set
> CPU_BASED_PAUSE_EXITING, so I think get_cpl() is also needed.

If the nested hypervisor sets CPU_BASED_PAUSE_EXITING, a PAUSE vmexit
while running a nested guest would be reflected to the nested
hypervisor. So you wouldn't get to handle_pause and thus to



 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-07 15:16    [W:0.065 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site