2016-12-12 17:02+0300, Denis Plotnikov:
> When processing KVM_REQ_EVENT, apic_update_ppr is called which may set
> KVM_REQ_EVENT again if the recalculated value of PPR becomes smaller
> than the previous one. This results in cancelling the guest entry and
> reiterating in vcpu_enter_guest.
>
> However this is unnecessary because at this point KVM_REQ_EVENT is
> already being processed and there are no other changes in the lapic
> that may require full-fledged state recalculation.
>
> This situation is often hit on systems with TPR shadow, where the
> TPR can be updated by the guest without a vmexit, so that the first
> apic_update_ppr to notice it is exactly the one called while
> processing KVM_REQ_EVENT.
>
> To avoid it, introduce a parameter in apic_update_ppr allowing to
> suppress setting of KVM_REQ_EVENT, and use it on the paths called from
> KVM_REQ_EVENT processing.
We also call:
kvm_cpu_get_interrupt() in nested_vmx_vmexit()
- that path is intended without KVM_REQ_EVENT
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in vmx_check_nested_events(),
- I think it does no harm
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_has_events()
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() in kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection()
- both seem safe as we should not have an interrupt between TPR
threshold and the new PPR value, so the KVM_REQ_EVENT was useless.
I would prefer we made sure that only callers from KVM_REQ_EVENT used
the function we are changing -- it is really easy to make a hard-to-find
mistake in interrupt delivery.
> This microoptimization gives 10% performance increase on a synthetic
> test doing a lot of IPC in Windows using window messages.
>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Still, there is a high possibility that this is going to work,
Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
