linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv7 3/8] kvm_para: guest side for eoi avoidance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120618145041.GE26540@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:50:41 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, gleb@...hat.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/8] kvm_para: guest side for eoi avoidance

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:17:24PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 04:53 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The idea is simple: there's a bit, per APIC, in guest memory,
> > that tells the guest that it does not need EOI.
> > Guest tests it using a single est and clear operation - this is
> > necessary so that host can detect interrupt nesting - and if set, it can
> > skip the EOI MSR.
> > 
> > I run a simple microbenchmark to show exit reduction
> > (note: for testing, need to apply follow-up patch
> > 'kvm: host side for eoi optimization' + a qemu patch
> >  I posted separately, on host):
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > index a6983b2..47f9eff 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -28,11 +28,13 @@
> >  #if __GNUC__ < 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 1)
> >  /* Technically wrong, but this avoids compilation errors on some gcc
> >     versions. */
> > -#define BITOP_ADDR(x) "=m" (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT "=m"
> >  #else
> > -#define BITOP_ADDR(x) "+m" (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT "+m"
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR(x) BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +
> >  #define ADDR				BITOP_ADDR(addr)
> 
> What's this doing here?

Ugh. More leftovers from when I had inline asm here.
Will remove.

> >  
> > +/* size alignment is implied but just to make it explicit. */
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, kvm_apic_eoi) __aligned(2) =
> > +	KVM_PV_EOI_DISABLED;
> 
> You're actually breaking the alignment.  ulong has 8 byte alignment
> sometimes and you can make it cross cache boundary this way.

No, if you look at the definition of __aligned
you will see that it limits the alignment from below.
Compiler still applies the natural size alignment.
You are not the first to get confused. So I wonder: is it better
to add a comment or simply remove __aligned here.

> > +
> >  void __cpuinit kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
> >  {
> >  	if (!kvm_para_available())
> > @@ -300,11 +320,17 @@ void __cpuinit kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
> >  		       smp_processor_id());
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI)) {
> > +		__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi) = 0;
> > +		wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_PV_EOI_EN, __pa(&__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi)) |
> > +		       KVM_MSR_ENABLED);
> 
> Bad formatting.

I guess temporary will make it prettier.
	unsigned long pa;
	__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi) = 0;
	pa = __pa(&__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi)) | KVM_MSR_ENABLED;
	wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_PV_EOI_EN, pa);

or did I miss the point?

> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (has_steal_clock)
> >  		kvm_register_steal_time();
> >  }
> >  
> 
> 
> Please check that the kexec path also disables pveoi.

The chunk in kvm_pv_guest_cpu_reboot does this, doesn't it?

> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/