linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: Boost vCPU candidiate in user mode which is delivering interrupt

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: <b2fca9a5-9b2b-b8f2-0d1e-fc8b9d9b5659@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:22:51 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Boost vCPU candidiate in user mode which is
 delivering interrupt

On 20/04/21 08:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 14:02, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to the loop
>>>> and only yielding to usermode vCPUs with interrupts in the second full pass?
>>>> I.e. give vCPUs that are already in kernel mode priority, and only yield to
>>>> handle an interrupt if there are no vCPUs in kernel mode.
>>>>
>>>> kvm_arch_dy_runnable() pulls in pv_unhalted, which seems like a good thing.
>>>
>>> pv_unhalted won't help if you're waiting for a kernel spinlock though,
>>> would it?  Doing two passes (or looking for a "best" candidate that
>>> prefers kernel mode vCPUs to user mode vCPUs waiting for an interrupt)
>>> seems like the best choice overall.
>>
>> How about something like this:

I was thinking of something simpler:

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 9b8e30dd5b9b..455c648f9adc 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -3198,10 +3198,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool yield_to_kernel_mode)
  {
  	struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
-	int last_boosted_vcpu = me->kvm->last_boosted_vcpu;
  	int yielded = 0;
  	int try = 3;
-	int pass;
+	int pass, num_passes = 1;
  	int i;
  
  	kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(me, true);
@@ -3212,13 +3211,14 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool yield_to_kernel_mode)
  	 * VCPU is holding the lock that we need and will release it.
  	 * We approximate round-robin by starting at the last boosted VCPU.
  	 */
-	for (pass = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded && try; pass++) {
-		kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
-			if (!pass && i <= last_boosted_vcpu) {
-				i = last_boosted_vcpu;
-				continue;
-			} else if (pass && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
-				break;
+	for (pass = 0; pass < num_passes; pass++) {
+		int idx = me->kvm->last_boosted_vcpu;
+		int n = atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus);
+		for (i = 0; i < n; i++, idx++) {
+			if (idx == n)
+				idx = 0;
+
+			vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx);
  			if (!READ_ONCE(vcpu->ready))
  				continue;
  			if (vcpu == me)
@@ -3226,23 +3226,36 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool yield_to_kernel_mode)
  			if (rcuwait_active(&vcpu->wait) &&
  			    !vcpu_dy_runnable(vcpu))
  				continue;
-			if (READ_ONCE(vcpu->preempted) && yield_to_kernel_mode &&
-				!kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu))
-				continue;
  			if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
  				continue;
  
+			if (READ_ONCE(vcpu->preempted) && yield_to_kernel_mode &&
+			    !kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu)) {
+			    /*
+			     * A vCPU running in userspace can get to kernel mode via
+			     * an interrupt.  That's a worse choice than a CPU already
+			     * in kernel mode so only do it on a second pass.
+			     */
+			    if (!vcpu_dy_runnable(vcpu))
+				    continue;
+			    if (pass == 0) {
+				    num_passes = 2;
+				    continue;
+			    }
+			}
+
  			yielded = kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu);
  			if (yielded > 0) {
  				kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
-				break;
+				goto done;
  			} else if (yielded < 0) {
  				try--;
  				if (!try)
-					break;
+					goto done;
  			}
  		}
  	}
+done:
  	kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(me, false);
  
  	/* Ensure vcpu is not eligible during next spinloop */

Paolo