On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 02:25:44PM +0300, Liran Alon wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 Apr 2019, at 23:18, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > To minimize the latency of timer interrupts as observed by the guest,
> > KVM adjusts the values it programs into the host timers to account for
> > the host's overhead of programming and handling the timer event. In
> > the event that the adjustments are too aggressive, i.e. the timer fires
> > earlier than the guest expects, KVM busy waits immediately prior to
> > entering the guest.
> >
> > Currently, KVM manually converts the delay from nanoseconds to clock
> > cycles. But, the conversion is done in the guest's time domain, while
> > the delay occurs in the host's time domain, i.e. the delay may not be
> > accurate and could wait too little or too long.
>
> Just to make sure I understand the issue you see here:
> The __delay() is called with a parameter which the number of guest cycles required
> to get from current guest cycle (guest_tsc) to deadline cycle (tsc_deadline).
> But in case guest vCPU frequency is different than physical CPU frequency,
> this parameter should further be converted from guest cycles to host cycles.
> Do I understand correctly? If yes, I think you should elaborate this part a bit more in commit message.
> As this is quite confusing. :)
Heh, I didn't elaborate precisely because it was so darn confusing. I
didn't want to say something completely incorrect so I kept it high level.
>
> > Sidestep the headache
> > of shifting time domains by delaying 1ns at a time and breaking the loop
> > when the guest's desired timer delay has been satisfied. Because the
> > advancement, which caps the delay to avoid unbounded busy waiting, is
> > stored in nanoseconds, the current advancement time can simply be used
> > as a loop terminator since we're delaying 1ns at a time (plus the few
> > cycles of overhead for running the code).
>
> Looking at start_sw_tscdeadline(), we have the same issue where we require to convert guest cycles to host ns time in order to set hrtimer expiration time.
> This is simply done by:
> host_ns = guest_cycles * 1000000ULL;
> do_div(host_ns, vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz);
>
> Why shouldn’t we use the same approach for constructing __delay() parameter from guest_cycles currently pass to it as parameter?
> i.e. something such as:
> delay_guest_cycles = min(tsc_deadline - guest_tsc, nsec_to_cycles(vcpu, lapic_timer_advance_ns));
> delay_host_ns = delay_guest_cycles * 1000000ULL;
> do_div(delay_host_ns, vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz);
> __delay(delay_host_ns);
That's also an option. I opted for the loop as it felt simpler and more
obvious. And explicitly checking rechecking kvm_read_l1_tsc() guarantees
the guest won't see an "early" TSC unless the cap kicks in. That being
said, I don't have a strong opinion either way.
As for the code, we'd probably want to do the conversion first and cap
second so as to avoid converting lapic_timer_advance_ns to the guest's
TSC and then back to ns. It should use ndelay(), and maybe just call it
"delay_ns" to avoid (temporarily) assigning a guest TSC calculation to a
host variable, e.g.:
delay_ns = (tsc_deadline - guest_tsc) * 1000000ULL;
do_div(delay_ns, vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz);
ndelay(min(delay_ns, lapic_timer_advance_ns));
That's actually nowhere near as as bad as I thought it would be now that
it's typed out...
>
> -Liran
>
> >
> > Cc: Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 13 +++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > index 92446cba9b24..e797e3145a8b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > @@ -1486,7 +1486,8 @@ static bool lapic_timer_int_injected(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > void wait_lapic_expire(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct kvm_lapic *apic = vcpu->arch.apic;
> > - u64 guest_tsc, tsc_deadline, ns;
> > + u32 timer_advance_ns = lapic_timer_advance_ns;
> > + u64 guest_tsc, tmp_tsc, tsc_deadline, ns;
>
> Nit: I would rename guest_tsc and tmp_tsc to guest_tsc_on_exit and current_guest_tsc respectively.
guest_tsc_on_exit isn't correct though, as it holds the guest's TSC at the
beginning of wait_lapic_expire(), e.g. guest_tsc_start would be more
appropriate. My main motivation for not using verbose names is keep lines
short, i.e. avoid wrapping at 80 chars. For me, wrapping a bunch of lines
makes the code more difficult to read than less verbose names.
>
> >
> > if (!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu))
> > return;
> > @@ -1499,13 +1500,13 @@ void wait_lapic_expire(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > tsc_deadline = apic->lapic_timer.expired_tscdeadline;
> > apic->lapic_timer.expired_tscdeadline = 0;
> > - guest_tsc = kvm_read_l1_tsc(vcpu, rdtsc());
> > + tmp_tsc = guest_tsc = kvm_read_l1_tsc(vcpu, rdtsc());
> > trace_kvm_wait_lapic_expire(vcpu->vcpu_id, guest_tsc - tsc_deadline);
> >
> > - /* __delay is delay_tsc whenever the hardware has TSC, thus always. */
> > - if (guest_tsc < tsc_deadline)
> > - __delay(min(tsc_deadline - guest_tsc,
> > - nsec_to_cycles(vcpu, lapic_timer_advance_ns)));
> > + for (ns = 0; tmp_tsc < tsc_deadline && ns < timer_advance_ns; ns++) {
> > + ndelay(1);
> > + tmp_tsc = kvm_read_l1_tsc(vcpu, rdtsc());
> > + }
> >
> > if (!lapic_timer_advance_adjust_done) {
> > /* too early */
> > --
> > 2.21.0
> >
>
