| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cz1kVkPQwDB3s_kD1ewdgUWaB4kQNZj_FqACPKk032Mgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 14:38:44 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] KVM: LAPIC: Delay trace advance expire delta
On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 03:44, Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:06:19AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> >
> > wait_lapic_expire() call was moved above guest_enter_irqoff() because of
> > its tracepoint, which violated the RCU extended quiescent state invoked
> > by guest_enter_irqoff()[1][2]. This patch simply moves the tracepoint
> > below guest_exit_irqoff() in vcpu_enter_guest(). Snapshot the delta before
> > VM-Enter, but trace it after VM-Exit. This can help us to move
> > wait_lapic_expire() just before vmentry in the later patch.
> >
> > [1] Commit 8b89fe1f6c43 ("kvm: x86: move tracepoints outside extended quiescent state")
> > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7821111/
> >
> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> > Cc: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > index 2f364fe..af38ece 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > @@ -1502,27 +1502,27 @@ static inline void __wait_lapic_expire(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 guest_cycles)
> > }
> >
> > static inline void adaptive_tune_timer_advancement(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > - u64 guest_tsc, u64 tsc_deadline)
> > + s64 advance_expire_delta)
> > {
> > struct kvm_lapic *apic = vcpu->arch.apic;
> > u32 timer_advance_ns = apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_ns;
> > u64 ns;
> >
> > /* too early */
> > - if (guest_tsc < tsc_deadline) {
> > - ns = (tsc_deadline - guest_tsc) * 1000000ULL;
> > + if (advance_expire_delta < 0) {
> > + ns = -advance_expire_delta * 1000000ULL;
> > do_div(ns, vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz);
> > timer_advance_ns -= min((u32)ns,
> > timer_advance_ns / LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_STEP);
> > } else {
> > /* too late */
> > - ns = (guest_tsc - tsc_deadline) * 1000000ULL;
> > + ns = advance_expire_delta * 1000000ULL;
> > do_div(ns, vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz);
> > timer_advance_ns += min((u32)ns,
> > timer_advance_ns / LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_STEP);
> > }
> >
> > - if (abs(guest_tsc - tsc_deadline) < LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_DONE)
> > + if (abs(advance_expire_delta) < LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_DONE)
> > apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_adjust_done = true;
> > if (unlikely(timer_advance_ns > 5000)) {
> > timer_advance_ns = 0;
> > @@ -1545,13 +1545,13 @@ void wait_lapic_expire(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > tsc_deadline = apic->lapic_timer.expired_tscdeadline;
> > apic->lapic_timer.expired_tscdeadline = 0;
> > guest_tsc = kvm_read_l1_tsc(vcpu, rdtsc());
> > - trace_kvm_wait_lapic_expire(vcpu->vcpu_id, guest_tsc - tsc_deadline);
> > + apic->lapic_timer.advance_expire_delta = guest_tsc - tsc_deadline;
> >
> > - if (guest_tsc < tsc_deadline)
> > + if (apic->lapic_timer.advance_expire_delta < 0)
>
> I'd prefer to keep "guest_tsc < tsc_deadline" here, just so that it's
> obvious that the call to __wait_lapic_expire() is safe. My eyes did a
> few double takes reading this code :-)
Ok.
>
> > __wait_lapic_expire(vcpu, tsc_deadline - guest_tsc);
> >
> > if (unlikely(!apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_adjust_done))
> > - adaptive_tune_timer_advancement(vcpu, guest_tsc, tsc_deadline);
> > + adaptive_tune_timer_advancement(vcpu, apic->lapic_timer.advance_expire_delta);
> > }
> >
> > static void start_sw_tscdeadline(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > index d6d049b..3e72a25 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct kvm_timer {
> > u64 tscdeadline;
> > u64 expired_tscdeadline;
> > u32 timer_advance_ns;
> > + s64 advance_expire_delta;
> > atomic_t pending; /* accumulated triggered timers */
> > bool hv_timer_in_use;
> > bool timer_advance_adjust_done;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index f2e3847..4a7b00c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -7961,6 +7961,8 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > ++vcpu->stat.exits;
> >
> > guest_exit_irqoff();
> > + trace_kvm_wait_lapic_expire(vcpu->vcpu_id,
> > + vcpu->arch.apic->lapic_timer.advance_expire_delta);
>
> This needs to be guarded with lapic_in_kernel(vcpu). But, since this is
> all in the same flow, a better approach would be to return the delta from
> wait_lapic_expire(). That saves 8 bytes in struct kvm_timer and avoids
> additional checks for tracing the delta.
As you know, the function wait_lapic_expire() will be moved to vmx.c
and svm.c, so this is not suitable any more.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
>
> E.g.:
>
> s64 lapic_expire_delta;
>
> ...
>
> if (lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) &&
> vcpu->arch.apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_ns)
> lapic_expire_delta = wait_lapic_expire(vcpu);
> else
> lapic_expire_delta = 0;
>
> ...
>
> trace_kvm_wait_lapic_expire(vcpu->vcpu_id, lapic_expire_delta);
> >
> > local_irq_enable();
> > preempt_enable();
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists