lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: X86: Single target IPI fastpath
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 21:06, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > +
> > static void vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> > @@ -6615,6 +6645,12 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > | (1 << VCPU_EXREG_CR3));
> > vcpu->arch.regs_dirty = 0;
> >
> > + vmx->exit_reason = vmx->fail ? 0xdead : vmcs_read32(VM_EXIT_REASON);
> > + vcpu->fast_vmexit = false;
> > + if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> > + vmx->exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_MSR_WRITE)
> > + vcpu->fast_vmexit = handle_ipi_fastpath(vcpu);
>
> I have to admit this looks too much to me :-( Yes, I see the benefits of
> taking a shortcut (by actualy penalizing all other MSR writes) but the
> question I have is: where do we stop?

In our iaas environment observation, ICR and TSCDEADLINE are the main
MSR write vmexits.

Before patch:
tscdeadline_immed 3900
tscdeadline 5413

After patch:
tscdeadline_immed 3912
tscdeadline 5427

So the penalize can be tolerated.

>
> Also, this 'shortcut' creates an imbalance in tracing: you don't go down
> to kvm_emulate_wrmsr() so handle_ipi_fastpath() should probably gain a
> tracepoint.

Agreed.

>
> Looking at 'fast_vmexit' name makes me think this is something
> generic. Is this so? Maybe we can create some sort of an infrastructure
> for fast vmexit handling and make it easy to hook things up to it?

Maybe an indirect jump? But I can have a try.

Wanpeng

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-12 02:19    [W:0.178 / U:2.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site