[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y++s2LvnBxydxhVM@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:35:36 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@...ecurity.net>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Put struct kvm_vcpu on a diet
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 16.02.23 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I'm not necessarily opposed to such aggressive optimization, but the ROI is likely
> > very, very low. For optimized workloads, there simply aren't very many VM-Exits,
> > e.g. the majority of exits on a modern CPU are due to timer ticks. And even those
> > will hopefully be eliminiated in the not-too-distant future, e.g. by having hardware
> > virtualize the TSC deadline timer, and by moving to a vCPU scheduling scheme that
> > allows for a tickless host.
>
> Well, for guests running grsecurity kernels, there's also the CR0.WP
> toggling triggering VMEXITs, which happens a lot! -- at least until
> something along the lines of [1] gets merged *hint ;)*
Ha! It's high on my todo list for 6.4, catching up on other stuff at the moment.
That series is also _exactly_ why the ROI for aggressive cache line optimization
is low. The better long term answer is almost always to avoid the VM-Exit in the
first place, or failing that, to handle the exit in a fastpath. Sometimes it takes
a few years, e.g. to get necessary hardware support, but x86 virtualization is fast
approaching the point where anything remotely performance critical is handled entirely
within the guest.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists