[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925091316.bnwpiscs2bvpdxk5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:13:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86: kvm guest side support for KVM_HC_RT_PRIO
hypercall
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:57:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> I think you are missing the following point:
>
> "vcpu0 can be interrupted when its not in a spinlock protected section,
> otherwise it can't."
>
> So you _have_ to communicate to the host when the guest enters/leaves a
> critical section.
>
> So this point of "everything needs to be RT and the priorities must be
> designed carefully", is this:
>
> WHEN in spinlock protected section (more specifically, when
> spinlock protected section _shared with realtime vcpus_),
>
> priority of vcpu0 > priority of emulator thread
>
> OTHERWISE
>
> priority of vcpu0 < priority of emulator thread.
>
> (*)
>
> So emulator thread can interrupt and inject interrupts to vcpu0.
spinlock protected regions are not everything. What about lock-free
constructs where CPU's spin-wait on one another (there's plenty).
And I'm clearly ignorant of how this emulation thread works, but why
would it run for a long time? Either it is needed for forward progress
of the VCPU or its not. If its not, it shouldn't run.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists