On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 12:20 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/14/2030 12:05 PM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > Here is the new patch of V3 against tip/master of April 13th
> > if anyone wants to try it.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for persisting despite the flames.
>
> Can you please separate arch/x86/kvm part of the patch? That will make
> for easier reviewing, and will need to go through separate trees.
I should do so definitely, and will do so in next version which also fixes
some issues pointed by Ingo.
>
> Sheng, did you make any progress with the NMI injection issue?
>
> > +
> > diff -Nraup linux-2.6_tip0413/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c linux-2.6_tip0413_perfkvm/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > --- linux-2.6_tip0413/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c 2010-04-14 11:11:04.341042024 +0800
> > +++ linux-2.6_tip0413_perfkvm/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c 2010-04-14 11:32:45.841278890 +0800
> > @@ -3765,6 +3765,35 @@ static void kvm_timer_init(void)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, current_vcpu);
> > +
> > +static int kvm_is_in_guest(void)
> > +{
> > + return percpu_read(current_vcpu) != NULL;
> >
>
> An even more accurate way to determine this is to check whether the
> interrupt frame points back at the 'int $2' instruction. However we
> plan to switch to a self-IPI method to inject the NMI, and I'm not sure
> wether APIC NMIs are accepted on an instruction boundary or whether
> there's some latency involved.
Yes. But the frame pointer checking seems a little complicated.
>
> > +static unsigned long kvm_get_guest_ip(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long ip = 0;
> > + if (percpu_read(current_vcpu))
> > + ip = kvm_rip_read(percpu_read(current_vcpu));
> > + return ip;
> > +}
> >
>
> This may be racy. kvm_rip_read() accesses a cache in memory; if we're
> in the process of updating the cache, then we may read a stale value.
> See below.
Right. The racy window seems too big.
>
> >
> > trace_kvm_entry(vcpu->vcpu_id);
> > +
> > + percpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu);
> > kvm_x86_ops->run(vcpu);
> > + percpu_write(current_vcpu, NULL);
> >
>
> If you move this around the 'int $2' instructions you will close the
> race, as a stray NMI won't catch us updating the rip cache. But that
> depends on whether self-IPI is accepted on the next instruction or not.
Right. The kernel part has dependency on the self-IPI implementation.
I will move above percpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu) (or a new wrapper function)
just around 'int $2'.
Sheng would find a solution on the self-IPI delivery. Let's separate my patch
and self-IPI as 2 issues as we don't know when the self-IPI delivery would be
resolved.
Thanks,
Yanmin
--
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
