On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 5:06 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > +#define kvm_vm_has_started(kvm) (kvm->vm_started)
> >
> > Needs parantheses around (kvm), but why bother with a macro? This is the same
> > header that defines struct kvm.
> >
> No specific reason for creating a macro as such. I can remove it if it
> feels noisy.
Please do. In the future, don't use a macro unless there's a good reason to do
so. Don't get me wrong, I love abusing macros, but for things like this they are
completely inferior to
static inline bool kvm_vm_has_started(struct kvm *kvm)
{
return kvm->vm_started;
}
because a helper function gives us type safety, doesn't suffer from concatenation
of tokens potentially doing weird things, is easier to extend to a multi-line
implementation, etc...
An example of when it's ok to use a macro is x86's
#define kvm_arch_vcpu_memslots_id(vcpu) ((vcpu)->arch.hflags & HF_SMM_MASK ? 1 : 0)
which uses a macro instead of a proper function to avoid a circular dependency
due to arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h being included by include/linux/kvm_host.h
and thus x86's implementation of kvm_arch_vcpu_memslots_id() coming before the
definition of struct kvm_vcpu. But that's very much an exception and done only
because the alternatives suck more.
> > > + */
> > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >
> > This adds unnecessary lock contention when running vCPUs. The naive solution
> > would be:
> > if (!kvm->vm_started) {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> Not sure if I understood the solution..
In your proposed patch, KVM_RUN will take kvm->lock _every_ time. That introduces
unnecessary contention as it will serialize this bit of code if multiple vCPUs
are attempting KVM_RUN. By checking !vm_started, only the "first" KVM_RUN for a
VM will acquire kvm->lock and thus avoid contention once the VM is up and running.
There's still a possibility that multiple vCPUs will contend for kvm->lock on their
first KVM_RUN, hence the quotes. I called it "naive" because it's possible there's
a more elegant solution depending on the use case, e.g. a lockless approach might
work (or it might not).
> > > + kvm->vm_started = true;
> > > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >
> > Lastly, why is this in generic KVM?
> >
> The v1 of the series originally had it in the arm specific code.
> However, I was suggested to move it to the generic code since the book
> keeping is not arch specific and could be helpful to others too [1].
I'm definitely in favor of moving/adding thing to generic KVM when it makes sense,
but I'm skeptical in this particular case. The code _is_ arch specific in that
arm64 apparently needs to acquire kvm->lock when checking if a vCPU has run, e.g.
versus a hypothetical x86 use case that might be completely ok with a lockless
implementation. And it's not obvious that there's a plausible, safe use case
outside of arm64, e.g. on x86, there is very, very little that is truly shared
across the entire VM/system, most things are per-thread/core/package in some way,
shape, or form. In other words, I'm a wary of providing something like this for
x86 because odds are good that any use will be functionally incorrect.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
