On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 17:25 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > (This thing is that when you tell the IOMMU that a vCPU is not running, > > Another thing I discovered that this patch series totally breaks my VMs, > > without cpu_pm=on The whole series (I didn't yet bisect it) makes even my > > fedora32 VM be very laggy, almost unusable, and it only has one > > passed-through device, a nic). > > Grrrr, the complete lack of comments in the KVM code and the separate paths for > VMX vs SVM when handling HLT with APICv make this all way for difficult to > understand than it should be. > > The hangs are likely due to: > > KVM: SVM: Unconditionally mark AVIC as running on vCPU load (with APICv) Yes, the other hang I told about which makes all my VMs very laggy, almost impossible to use is because of the above patch, but since I reproduced it now again without any passed-through device, I also blame the cpu errata on this. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky > > If a posted interrupt arrives after KVM has done its final search through the vIRR, > but before avic_update_iommu_vcpu_affinity() is called, the posted interrupt will > be set in the vIRR without triggering a host IRQ to wake the vCPU via the GA log. > > I.e. KVM is missing an equivalent to VMX's posted interrupt check for an outstanding > notification after switching to the wakeup vector. > > For now, the least awful approach is sadly to keep the vcpu_(un)blocking() hooks. > Unlike VMX's PI support, there's no fast check for an interrupt being posted (KVM > would have to rewalk the vIRR), no easy to signal the current CPU to do wakeup (I > don't think KVM even has access to the IRQ used by the owning IOMMU), and there's > no simplification of load/put code. > > If the scheduler were changed to support waking in the sched_out path, then I'd be > more inclined to handle this in avic_vcpu_put() by rewalking the vIRR one final > time, but for now it's not worth it. > > > If I apply though only the patch series up to this patch, my fedora VM seems > > to work fine, but my windows VM still locks up hard when I run 'LatencyTop' > > in it, which doesn't happen without this patch. > > Buy "run 'LatencyTop' in it", do you mean running something in the Windows guest? > The only search results I can find for LatencyTop are Linux specific. > > > So far the symptoms I see is that on VCPU 0, ISR has quite high interrupt > > (0xe1 last time I seen it), TPR and PPR are 0xe0 (although I have seen TPR to > > have different values), and IRR has plenty of interrupts with lower priority. > > The VM seems to be stuck in this case. As if its EOI got lost or something is > > preventing the IRQ handler from issuing EOI. > > > > LatencyTop does install some form of a kernel driver which likely does meddle > > with interrupts (maybe it sends lots of self IPIs?). > > > > 100% reproducible as soon as I start monitoring with LatencyTop. > > > > Without this patch it works (or if disabling halt polling), > > Huh. I assume everything works if you disable halt polling _without_ this patch > applied? > > If so, that implies that successful halt polling without mucking with vCPU IOMMU > affinity is somehow problematic. I can't think of any relevant side effects other > than timing. >
