On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 11:23 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 09:47 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 17:20 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_HYPERV is currently unconditionally forced upon
> > > > > SynIC activation as SynIC's AutoEOI is incompatible with APICv/AVIC. It is,
> > > > > however, possible to track whether the feature was actually used by the
> > > > > guest and only inhibit APICv/AVIC when needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > TLFS suggests a dedicated 'HV_DEPRECATING_AEOI_RECOMMENDED' flag to let
> > > > > Windows know that AutoEOI feature should be avoided. While it's up to
> > > > > KVM userspace to set the flag, KVM can help a bit by exposing global
> > > > > APICv/AVIC enablement: in case APICv/AVIC usage is impossible, AutoEOI
> > > > > is still preferred.
> > > > > Maxim:
> > > > > - added SRCU lock drop around call to kvm_request_apicv_update
> > > > > - always set HV_DEPRECATING_AEOI_RECOMMENDED in kvm_get_hv_cpuid,
> > > > > since this feature can be used regardless of AVIC
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 +++
> > > > > arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > index e11d64aa0bcd..f900dca58af8 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > @@ -956,6 +956,9 @@ struct kvm_hv {
> > > > > /* How many vCPUs have VP index != vCPU index */
> > > > > atomic_t num_mismatched_vp_indexes;
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* How many SynICs use 'AutoEOI' feature */
> > > > > + atomic_t synic_auto_eoi_used;
> > > > > +
> > > > > struct hv_partition_assist_pg *hv_pa_pg;
> > > > > struct kvm_hv_syndbg hv_syndbg;
> > > > > };
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > > > index b07592ca92f0..6bf47a583d0e 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > > > @@ -85,9 +85,22 @@ static bool synic_has_vector_auto_eoi(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_synic *synic,
> > > > > return false;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void synic_toggle_avic(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool activate)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
> > > > > + kvm_request_apicv_update(vcpu->kvm, activate,
> > > > > + APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_HYPERV);
> > > > > + vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > Well turns out that this patch still doesn't work (on this
> > > > weekend I found out that all my AVIC enabled VMs hang on reboot).
> > > >
> > > > I finally found out what prompted me back then to make srcu lock drop
> > > > in synic_update_vector conditional on whether the write was done
> > > > by the host.
> > > >
> > > > Turns out that while KVM_SET_MSRS does take the kvm->srcu lock,
> > > > it stores the returned srcu index in a local variable and not
> > > > in vcpu->srcu_idx, thus the lock drop in synic_toggle_avic
> > > > doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > So it is likely that I have seen it not work, and blamed
> > > > KVM_SET_MSRS for not taking the srcu lock which was a wrong assumption.
> > > >
> > > > I am more inclined to fix this by just tracking if we hold the srcu
> > > > lock on each VCPU manually, just as we track the srcu index anyway,
> > > > and then kvm_request_apicv_update can use this to drop the srcu
> > > > lock when needed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to use some magic value in 'vcpu->srcu_idx' and not
> > > introduce a new 'srcu_ls_locked' flag?
> >
> > Well, currently the returned index value from srcu_read_lock is opaque
> > (and we have two SRCU implementations and both I think return small positive numbers,
> > but I haven't studied them in depth).
> >
> > We can ask the people that maintain SRCU to reserve a number (like -1)
> > or so.
> > I probably first add the 'srcu_is_locked' thought and then as a follow up patch
> > remove it if they agree.
> >
>
> Ah, OK. BTW, I've just discovered srcu_read_lock_held() which sounds
> like the function we need but unfortunately it is not.
Yea, exactly this. :-(
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
