Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 20:21, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Commit 8566ac8b (KVM: SVM: Implement pause loop exit logic in SVM) drops
>> > disable pause loop exit/pause filtering capability completely, I guess it
>> > is a merge fault by Radim since disable vmexits capabilities and pause
>> > loop exit for SVM patchsets are merged at the same time. This patch
>> > reintroduces the disable pause loop exit/pause filtering capability
>> > support.
>> >
>> > We can observe 2.9% hackbench improvement for a 92 vCPUs guest on AMD
>> > Rome Server.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Tested-by: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Fixes: 8566ac8b (KVM: SVM: Implement pause loop exit logic in SVM)
>> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 9 ++++++---
>> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> > index c0da4dd..c20f127 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> > @@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ static void init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>> > svm->nested.vmcb = 0;
>> > svm->vcpu.arch.hflags = 0;
>> >
>> > - if (pause_filter_count) {
>> > + if (pause_filter_count && !kvm_pause_in_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm)) {
>> > control->pause_filter_count = pause_filter_count;
>> > if (pause_filter_thresh)
>> > control->pause_filter_thresh = pause_filter_thresh;
>> > @@ -2693,7 +2693,7 @@ static int pause_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &svm->vcpu;
>> > bool in_kernel = (svm_get_cpl(vcpu) == 0);
>> >
>> > - if (pause_filter_thresh)
>> > + if (!kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
>> > grow_ple_window(vcpu);
>> >
>> > kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu, in_kernel);
>> > @@ -3780,7 +3780,7 @@ static void svm_handle_exit_irqoff(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >
>> > static void svm_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>> > {
>> > - if (pause_filter_thresh)
>> > + if (!kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
>> > shrink_ple_window(vcpu);
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -3958,6 +3958,9 @@ static void svm_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>> >
>> > static int svm_vm_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>> > {
>> > + if (!pause_filter_thresh)
>> > + kvm->arch.pause_in_guest = true;
>>
>> Would it make sense to do
>>
>> if (!pause_filter_count || !pause_filter_thresh)
>> kvm->arch.pause_in_guest = true;
>>
>> here and simplify the condition in init_vmcb()?
>
> kvm->arch.pause_in_guest can also be true when userspace sets the
> KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS capability, so we can't simplify the
> condition in init_vmcb().
>
I meant we simplify it to
if (!kvm_pause_in_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm))
as "!pause_filter_count" gets included.
--
Vitaly
