On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 16:31 +0000, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 7:14 AM UTC, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 11:17 +0000, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > HVCALL_SEND_IPI and HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX allow targeting specific a
> > > specific VTL. Honour the requests.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> > > arch/x86/kvm/trace.h | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> > > include/asm-generic/hyperv-tlfs.h | 6 ++++--
> > > 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > index d4b1b53ea63d..2cf430f6ddd8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > @@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
> > > - u64 *sparse_banks, u64 valid_bank_mask)
> > > + u64 *sparse_banks, u64 valid_bank_mask, int vtl)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_lapic_irq irq = {
> > > .delivery_mode = APIC_DM_FIXED,
> > > @@ -2245,6 +2245,9 @@ static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
> > > valid_bank_mask, sparse_banks))
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > + if (kvm_hv_get_active_vtl(vcpu) != vtl)
> > > + continue;
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that this is a temporary limitation?
> > In other words, can a vCPU running in VTL1 send an IPI to a vCPU running VTL0,
> > forcing the target vCPU to do async switch to VTL1?
> > I think that this is possible.
>
> The diff is missing some context. See this simplified implementation
> (when all_cpus is set in the parent function):
>
> static void kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector, int vtl)
> {
> [...]
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> if (kvm_hv_get_active_vtl(vcpu) != vtl)
> continue;
>
> kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, &irq, NULL);
> }
> }
>
> With the one vCPU per VTL approach, kvm_for_each_vcpu() will iterate
> over *all* vCPUs regardless of their VTL. The IPI is targetted at a
> specific VTL, hence the need to filter.
>
> VTL1 -> VTL0 IPIs are supported and happen (although they are extremely
> rare).
Makes sense now, thanks!
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> Nicolas
>
