On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 07:48, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
> > > What kernel version? There have been a variety of fixes/changes in the
> > > area in recent kernels.
> >
> > The kernel version is 4.18, and it seems the latest kernel also has this problem.
> >
> > The following code can fixes this bug, I've tested it on 4.18.
> >
> > (4.18)
> >
> > @@ -3944,6 +3944,11 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
> > if (pi_test_and_set_on(&vmx->pi_desc))
> > return;
> >
> > + if (swq_has_sleeper(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu))) {
> > + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu() &&
> > !kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> > kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >
> >
> > (latest)
> >
> > @@ -3959,6 +3959,11 @@ static int vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
> > if (pi_test_and_set_on(&vmx->pi_desc))
> > return 0;
> >
> > + if (rcuwait_active(&vcpu->wait)) {
> > + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu() &&
> > !kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> > kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions ?
>
> Hmm, that strongly suggests the "vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu()" is at fault.
This was introduced in 5.8-rc1, however, his kernel version is 4.18.
> Can you try running with the below commit? It's currently sitting in kvm/queue,
> but not marked for stable because I didn't think it was possible for the check
> to a cause a missed wake event in KVM's current code base.
>
> commit 6a8110fea2c1b19711ac1ef718680dfd940363c6
> Author: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Dec 8 01:52:27 2021 +0000
>
> KVM: VMX: Wake vCPU when delivering posted IRQ even if vCPU == this vCPU
>
> Drop a check that guards triggering a posted interrupt on the currently
> running vCPU, and more importantly guards waking the target vCPU if
> triggering a posted interrupt fails because the vCPU isn't IN_GUEST_MODE.
> The "do nothing" logic when "vcpu == running_vcpu" works only because KVM
> doesn't have a path to ->deliver_posted_interrupt() from asynchronous
> context, e.g. if apic_timer_expired() were changed to always go down the
> posted interrupt path for APICv, or if the IN_GUEST_MODE check in
> kvm_use_posted_timer_interrupt() were dropped, and the hrtimer fired in
> kvm_vcpu_block() after the final kvm_vcpu_check_block() check, the vCPU
> would be scheduled() out without being awakened, i.e. would "miss" the
> timer interrupt.
>
> One could argue that invoking kvm_apic_local_deliver() from (soft) IRQ
> context for the current running vCPU should be illegal, but nothing in
> KVM actually enforces that rules. There's also no strong obvious benefit
> to making such behavior illegal, e.g. checking IN_GUEST_MODE and calling
> kvm_vcpu_wake_up() is at worst marginally more costly than querying the
> current running vCPU.
>
> Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
> interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-Id: <20211208015236.1616697-18-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 38749063da0e..f61a6348cffd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -3995,8 +3995,7 @@ static int vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
> * guaranteed to see PID.ON=1 and sync the PIR to IRR if triggering a
> * posted interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE.
> */
> - if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu() &&
> - !kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> + if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
> kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
>
> return 0;
