[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161215143054.GC6667@potion>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:30:54 +0100
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>, den@...tuozzo.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT
2016-12-15 10:18+0300, Roman Kagan:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:29:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 14/12/2016 11:59, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>> >
>> > if ((exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT)
>> > && nested_exit_intr_ack_set(vcpu)) {
>> > - int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu);
>> > + int irq = kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(vcpu, true);
>> > WARN_ON(irq < 0);
>>
>> I think this is not needed, because all nested vmexits end with a KVM_REQ_EVENT:
I also think that it can safely be false and we could drop the parameter
from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt().
(We have injected the highest priority interrupt and put it into ISR,
raising PPR again to its level, so there should be nothing to do in
KVM_REQ_EVENT due to any TPR changes.)
>> /*
>> * the KVM_REQ_EVENT optimization bit is only on for one entry, and if
>> * we did not inject a still-pending event to L1 now because of
>> * nested_run_pending, we need to re-enable this bit.
>> */
>> if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
>> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>
> IIRC .nested_run_pending indicates we're emulating vmlaunch/vmresume and
> should not vmexit to L1, so this is not exactly "all nested vmexits"...
>
>> This would allow you to always pass false from kvm_cpu_get_interrupt to
>> kvm_get_apic_interrupt. Not sure if the additional complication in vmx.c
>> is worth the simplification in lapic.c. Radim, second opinion? :)
This patch goes for a minimal change in the non-nested case, so I would
leave nVMX optimizations for another patch.
One useless round of KVM_REQ_EVENT is not going change nested
performance by much and it is not the only thing we could improve wrt.
TPR ... I would just leave it for now and take care of it when we
* don't to update PPR at all with APICv -- it is already correct
* drop the KVM_REQ_EVENT with flex priority, because lower TPR cannot
unmask an interrupt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists