2017-02-20 12:35+0100, David Hildenbrand: > Am 20.02.2017 um 12:12 schrieb Christian Borntraeger: >> On 02/17/2017 06:10 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> >>>>> Yes, it would. There's some parallel with QEMU's qemu_cpu_kick, where >>>>> the signal would be processed immediately after entering KVM_RUN. >>>> >>>> Something like >>>> >>>> ---snip----- >>>> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb = READ_ONCE(vcpu->arch.vsie_block); >>>> >>>> atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags); >>>> if (scb) >>>> atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &scb->cpuflags); >>>> ---snip----- >>>> >>>> or >>>> ---snip----- >>>> atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags); >>>> kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu); >>>> ---snip----- >>> >>> I'd go for the latter one. Keep the vsie stuff isolated. Please note >> >> Yes makes sense. >> >> Radim, if you go with this patch something like this can be used as the >> s390 variant of kvm_arch_cpu_kick: >> >> ---snip--- >> /* >> * The stop indication is reset in the interrupt code. As the CPU >> * loop handles requests after interrupts, we will >> * a: miss the request handler and enter the guest, but then the >> * stop request will exit the CPU and handle the request in the next >> * round or >> * b: handle the request directly before entering the guest >> */ >> atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags); >> kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu); >> >> ---snip--- >> feel free to add that to your patch. I can also send a fixup patch later >> on if you prefer that. > > kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() then also has to be changed to return 1 for now. > > An interesting thing to note is how vcpu->cpu is used. > > Again, as s390x can preempt just before entering the guest, vcpu_kick() > might see vcpu->cpu = -1. Therefore, kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() won't > even be called. So our cpu might go into guest mode and stay there > longer than expected (as we won't kick it). > > On x86, it is the following way: > > If vcpu->cpu is -1, no need to kick the VCPU. It will check for requests > when preemption is disabled, therefore when rescheduled. > > If vcpu->cpu is set, kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() remembers if the VCPU > has already been kicked while in the critical section. It will get > kicked by smp resched as soon as entering guest mode. > > So here, disabled preemption + checks in the section with disabled > preemption (for requests and EXITING_GUEST_MODE) make sure that the > guest will leave guest mode and process requests in a timely fashion. > > On s390x, this is not 100% true. vcpu->cpu cannot be used as an > indicator whether a kick is necessary. Either that is ok for now, or the > vcpu->cpu != -1 check has to be disabled for s390x, e.g. by moving the > check into kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick(). Good point. So s390 doesn't need vcpu->cpu and only sets it because other arches do? And do I understand it correctly that the s390 SIE block operations have no side-effect, apart from changed memory, when outside of guest-mode? (We have cpu->mode mostly because interrupts are expensive. :]) In the end, I'd like to use kvm_vcpu_kick() for kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(). s390 sets vcpu->preempted to get a performance boost, which makes touching it less than desirable ... On s390, vcpu->preempted is only used in __diag_time_slice_end(), which seems to be a type of spinning-on-a-taken-lock hypercall -- any reason why that optimization shouldn't work on other architectures? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
