Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1493989

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check

Show all headers | View raw

在 2016/9/30 17:08, Paolo Bonzini 写道:
>
>
> On 30/09/2016 10:52, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>> x86 has no hypervisor support, and I'd like to understand the desired
>>> semantics first, so I don't think it should block this series.  In
>>
>> Once a guest do a hypercall or something similar, IOW, there is a
>> kvm_guest_exit. we think this is a lock holder preemption.
>> Adn PPC implement it in this way.
>
> Ok, good.
>
>>> particular, there are at least the following choices:
>>>
>>> 1) exit to userspace (5-10.000 clock cycles best case) counts as
>>> lock holder preemption
>>>
>>> 2) any time the vCPU thread not running counts as lock holder
>>> preemption
>>>
>>> To implement the latter you'd need a hypercall or MSR (at least as
>>> a slow path), because the KVM preempt notifier is only active
>>> during the KVM_RUN ioctl.
>>
>> seems a little expensive. :(
>> How many clock cycles it might cost.
>
> An MSR read is about 1500 clock cycles, but it need not be the fast path
> (e.g. use a bit to check if the CPU is running, if not use the MSR to
> check if the CPU is in userspace but the CPU thread is scheduled).  But
> it's not necessary if you are just matching PPC semantics.
>
> Then the simplest thing is to use the kvm_steal_time struct, and add a
> new field to it that replaces pad[0].  You can write a 0 to the flag in
> record_steal_time (not preempted) and a 1 in kvm_arch_vcpu_put
> (preempted).  record_steal_time is called before the VM starts running,
> immediately after KVM_RUN and also after every sched_in.
>
> If KVM doesn't implement the flag, it won't touch that field at all.  So
> the kernel can write a 0, meaning "not preempted", and not care if the
> hypervisor implements the flag or not: the answer will always be safe.
>
> The pointer to the flag can be placed in a per-cpu u32*, and again if
> the u32* is NULL that means "not preempted".
>
really nice suggestion!  That's what I want :)

thanks
xinhui

> Paolo
>
>
>> I am still looking for one shared struct between kvm and guest kernel on
>> x86.
>> and every time kvm_guest_exit/enter called, we store some info in it. So
>> guest kernel can check one vcpu is running or not quickly.
>>
>> thanks
>> xinhui
>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>
>

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-29 12:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-09-29 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-29 12:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-09-30 07:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-09-30 11:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2016-09-30 11:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-09-30 11:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-09-30 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-09-29 12:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-09-29 13:10 +0200

csiph-web