[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <450057441.5389401.1468013962741.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: yunhong jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v5 3/3] KVM: nVMX: keep preemption timer enabled
during L2 execution
> > > > @@ -10727,8 +10732,14 @@ static void nested_vmx_vmexit(struct
> > > > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 exit_reason,
> > > > load_vmcs12_host_state(vcpu, vmcs12);
> > > >
> > > > - /* Update TSC_OFFSET if TSC was changed while L2 ran */
> > > > + /* Update any VMCS fields that might have changed while
> > > > L2 ran */ vmcs_write64(TSC_OFFSET, vmx->nested.vmcs01_tsc_offset);
> > > > + if (vmx->hv_deadline_tsc == -1)
> > > > + vmcs_clear_bits(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL,
> > > > + PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER);
> > > > + else
> > > > + vmcs_set_bits(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL,
> > > > + PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER);
> > >
> > > Why do we need change the vmcs01 here? Per my understanding, the
> > > vmcs01 is not changed when the L2 guest is running thus the
> > > PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL should not be changed?
> >
> > This is the point where we are updating the vmcs01 after exiting. If
> > vmx->hv_deadline_tsc has changed (for example because of a preemption
>
> Thanks for the explaination. I try to go through the code and still
> have one question. I'd describe below and hope get your input.
>
> When the L2 guest running while the VMX Preemption timer triggered, the
> vcpu_enter_guest() will trigger vmx_handle_exit(), with the CPU vmcs as
> vmcs02. On the vmx_handle_exit(), the nested_vmx_exit_handled() return
> false as the 1st patch did, thus the vmcs is not switched. The
> kvm_lapic_expired_hv_timer() will be called with vmcs02, instead of
> vmcs01. Is it something we wanted? I assume we should use vmcs01 there
> since we will clear the preemption timer VMCS bit there.
Actually we want both. For whatever reason, the interrupt might not
cause a vmexit---for example if the L0 PPR is masking the LVTT vector.
In this case, we need to cancel the preemption timer in the vmcs02
(done by kvm_lapic_expired_hv_timer) and keep running L2. On the next
vmexit, nested_vmx_vmexit will load the vmcs01 and clear the preemption
timer bit.
Of course this is only theory until Wanpeng confirms that my patch works
for him. :)
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists