On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:32:50AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:22:43PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:53:02AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > This patch refactors KVM to align the host and guest FPSIMD
> > > save/restore logic with each other for arm64. This reduces the
> > > number of redundant save/restore operations that must occur, and
> > > reduces the common-case IRQ blackout time during guest exit storms
> > > by saving the host state lazily and optimising away the need to
> > > restore the host state before returning to the run loop.
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > > index db08a54..74c5a46 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -1054,15 +1066,20 @@ void fpsimd_update_current_state(struct user_fpsimd_state const *state)
> > > local_bh_enable();
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void fpsimd_flush_state(unsigned int *cpu)
> >
> > This API looks strange to me, and doesn't seem to be called from
> > elsewhere. Wouldn't it be more clear if it took a struct thread_struct
> > pointer instead, or if the logic remained embedded in
> > fpsimd_flush_task_state ?
>
> Hmmm, thanks for spotting this -- it's a throwback to my previous
> approach.
>
> I had intended to align KVM fully with the way host tasks' context is
> tracked, and this would involve a "most recent cpu FPSIMD loaded on"
> field in struct vcpu_arch: for ABI reasons this can't easily be tacked
> onto the end of struct user_fpsimd_state, so it would be necessary for
> it to be a separate field and passed to the relevant maintenance
> functions as a separate parameter.
>
> This approach would allow the vcpu FPSIMD state to remain in the regs
> across a context switch without the need to reload it, but this also
> means that some flushing/invalidation of this cached view of the state
> would be needed around KVM_GET_ONE_REG etc. and at vcpu destruction
> time. This function would be part of such a maintenance API.
>
> For now though, this seemed like extra complexity for dubious benefit.
>
> Unless you think it's worth pursuing this optimisation I should
> probably get rid of this function. We can always bring this back
> later if we choose.
>
Agreed, not need to pursue further optimizations at this time (ie.
before we have data that indicates it's worth it).
> > > +{
> > > + *cpu = NR_CPUS;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Invalidate live CPU copies of task t's FPSIMD state
> > > */
> > > void fpsimd_flush_task_state(struct task_struct *t)
> > > {
> > > - t->thread.fpsimd_cpu = NR_CPUS;
> > > + fpsimd_flush_state(&t->thread.fpsimd_cpu);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
> > > +void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
> > > {
> > > __this_cpu_write(fpsimd_last_state.st, NULL);
> > > }
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > index 8605e04..797b259 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > > #include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
> > > #include <asm/fpsimd.h>
> > > #include <asm/debug-monitors.h>
> > > +#include <asm/thread_info.h>
> > >
> > > static bool __hyp_text __fpsimd_enabled_nvhe(void)
> > > {
> > > @@ -47,24 +48,40 @@ bool __hyp_text __fpsimd_enabled(void)
> > > return __fpsimd_is_enabled()();
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void __hyp_text __activate_traps_vhe(void)
> > > +static bool update_fp_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > I think this needs a __hyp_text in the unlikely case that this function
> > is not inlined in the _nvhe caller by the compiler.
>
> You're right. I'll add it.
>
> > > +{
> > > + if (vcpu->arch.host_thread_info->flags & _TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE) {
> > > + vcpu->arch.host_fpsimd_state = NULL;
> > > + vcpu->arch.fp_enabled = false;
> > > + }
> >
> > I'm not clear why the above logic can't go into kvm_arch_vcpu_load_fp
> > and why we can't simply check TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE in __hyp_switch_fpsimd
> > instead?
>
> The situation can change in between _load_fp() and here, because of
> kernel-mode NEON.
>
> Also, we can't defer this check to __hyp_switch_fpsimd() because this is
> the logic for deciding whether to re-enable the Hyp FPSIMD trap in the
> first place.
>
>
> Here's a scenario:
>
> * We're on a second iteration of the run loop, with the vcpu state loaded:
> * fp_enabled = true, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE is clear,
> executing in the host with irqs enabled.
>
> * A softirq uses kernel-mode NEON:
> * vcpu FPSIMD state is saved back to memory
> * TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE now set
> * CPU FPSIMD regs now contain garbage
>
> * local_irq_disable(), and enter guest
>
> * fp_enabled == true, but out of date:
> * update_fp_enabled detects this condition by observing that
> TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE is set and clearing fp_enabled.
> * the (updated) value of fp_enabled determines that the FPSIMD trap
> should be enabled
>
> * __hyp_switch_fpsimd() saves no host state (because it was already
> saved and anyway host_fpsimd_state is NULL)
> * __hyp_switch_fpsimd() loads the guest state
>
>
> Is there a way to simplify the code that doesn't break this?
>
Hmmm, maybe not. At first glance I thought that TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE was
tied to the host_fpsimd_state being NULL or not, but it appears we can
have host_fpsimd_state be NULL while still not have TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE.
That in turn means that we have three boolean values to decribe our
state:
TIF_FOREIGN_PSTATE | host_fpsimd_state | fp_enabled | VFP Regs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 | 0 | 0 | Not allowed?
0 | 0 | 1 | vcpu state
0 | 1 | 0 | user state
0 | 1 | 1 | Not allowed?
1 | x | x | Garbage
If I got this vaguely correct, then indeed there doesn't seem to be any
way to simplify this.
> >
> > > +
> > > + return vcpu->arch.fp_enabled;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void __hyp_text __activate_traps_vhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > u64 val;
> > >
> > > val = read_sysreg(cpacr_el1);
> > > val |= CPACR_EL1_TTA;
> > > - val &= ~(CPACR_EL1_FPEN | CPACR_EL1_ZEN);
> > > + val &= ~CPACR_EL1_ZEN;
> > > + if (!update_fp_enabled(vcpu))
> > > + val &= ~CPACR_EL1_FPEN;
> > > +
> > > write_sysreg(val, cpacr_el1);
> > >
> > > write_sysreg(kvm_get_hyp_vector(), vbar_el1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void __hyp_text __activate_traps_nvhe(void)
> > > +static void __hyp_text __activate_traps_nvhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > u64 val;
> > >
> > > val = CPTR_EL2_DEFAULT;
> > > - val |= CPTR_EL2_TTA | CPTR_EL2_TFP | CPTR_EL2_TZ;
> > > + val |= CPTR_EL2_TTA | CPTR_EL2_TZ;
> > > + if (!update_fp_enabled(vcpu))
> > > + val |= CPTR_EL2_TFP;
> > > +
> > > write_sysreg(val, cptr_el2);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Otherwise this approach looks quite good to me overall. Are you
> > planning to add SVE support before removing the RFC from this series?
>
> Yes :)
>
> (I've been delaying that while we get the basic approach sorted out.)
>
Makes sense, was just trying to understand if this could somehow
actually work without adding SVE support.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
