On Sun, 2013-12-29 at 16:43 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 11.07.2013, at 00:47, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c
> > index ddfaf56..c13caa0 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c
> > @@ -884,14 +884,11 @@ program_interrupt:
> > * and if we really did time things so badly, then we just exit
> > * again due to a host external interrupt.
> > */
> > - local_irq_disable();
> > s = kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(vcpu);
> > - if (s <= 0) {
> > - local_irq_enable();
> > + if (s <= 0)
> > r = s;
> > - } else {
> > + else
> > kvmppc_fix_ee_before_entry();
> > - }
> > }
>
> Please add a comment here stating that interrupts are hard disabled at this point.
OK.
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> > index 4e05f8c..2f7a221 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> > @@ -64,12 +64,14 @@ int kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > int r = 1;
> >
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
> > + WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> > + hard_irq_disable();
> > +
> > while (true) {
> > if (need_resched()) {
> > local_irq_enable();
>
> One thing I find reasonably tricky in this approach is that we run
> local_irq_enable, but hard_irq_disable. I did dig through the code and
> it should work just fine, but I think we should make sure to note that
> this is intended and doesn't just work by accident.
>
> Just add a comment above the first call to hard_irq_disable() that
> explains that local_irq_enable() will properly unroll hard_irq_disable.
> That way the next person reading this doesn't have to dig as deeply.
There is no hard_irq_enable() -- only __hard_irq_enable() that doesn't
update local_paca->irq_happened.
This is normal use of the API. If there does need to be a comment, it
should go in hw_irq.h. :-)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> > - /* lazy EE magic */
> > - hard_irq_disable();
> > - if (lazy_irq_pending()) {
> > - /* Got an interrupt in between, try again */
> > - local_irq_enable();
> > - local_irq_disable();
> > - kvm_guest_exit();
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > + WARN_ON(lazy_irq_pending());
> > #endif
> > + /* Can't use irqs_disabled() because we want hard irq state */
> > + WARN_ON(mfmsr() & MSR_EE);
>
> The reason for lazy EE is that mfmsr() is supposed to be slow.
Not just mtmsr?
And when I complained about wrtee not being all that slow on our
hardware, Ben said it was also for perf coverage. :-)
> Couldn't we check for the internal hard disable flag instead? Just create a new
> helper in hw_irq.h that tells us
>
> local_paca->irq_happened & PACA_IRQ_HARD_DIS
>
> on PPC64 and
>
> !(mfmsr() & MSR_EE)
>
> on PPC32. We can then just use that helper here and not run "expensive" mfmsr() calls.
> I'm not sure whether it's actually measurable overhead in the context
> of the whole world switch, but why diverge from the rest of the system?
> If you think a new helper is overkill, I'd be fine with a simple #ifdef
> here just as well.
I'd hope a mfmsr wouldn't be so slow on any hardware as to be a big deal
here, though it'd also be nice if there were a Linux-wide way of
specifying whether a particular WARN should be always checked, or only
if the kernel is built with some debug option...
The "rest of the system" is irqs_disabled() and there's already a
comment explaining why we diverge from that.
Maybe we should just remove that check; we'd still at least have the
64-bit check in kvmppc_fix_ee_before_entry.
> > kvm_guest_enter();
> > - break;
> > + return r;
>
> This must be 0 at this point, right?
No, it'll be 1.
> Either way, I prefer to keep the code easily understandable. How about
> you keep the break and just add an if (r) around the local_irq_enable()
> below? Then add a comment stating that the return value tells us
> whether entry is ok to proceed and interrupts are disabled (0) or
> something didn't work out and interrupts are enabled (!0).
How is it more understandable to overload what looks like a single code
path with divergent cases that have little to nothing in common? Would
it help to add a comment on the return-to-host code path indicating that
it is only used for returning to the host?
I'd be fine with replacing "return r" with "return 1" (and getting rid
of the initialization of r at the top of the function, unless GCC
complains inappropriately).
-Scott
--
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
