>>> On 15.12.15 at 16:37, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 15.12.15 at 16:14, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 12/15/2015 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 15.12.15 at 15:36, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>>>>> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor >>>>>>> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest. >>>>>>> >>>>>> But if the VCPU is asleep, doing it via the hypervisor will save us waking >>>>>> up the guest VCPU, sending an IPI - just to do an TLB flush >>>>>> of that CPU. Which is pointless as the CPU hadn't been running the >>>>>> guest in the first place. >>>>>> >>>>>>> More importantly, using MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI may not to invalidate the >>>>>>> guest's address on remote CPU (when, for example, VCPU from another >>>>>>> guest >>>>>>> is running there). >>>>>> Right, so the hypervisor won't even send an IPI there. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if you do it via the normal guest IPI mechanism (which are opaque >>>>>> to the hypervisor) you and up scheduling the guest VCPU to do >>>>>> send an hypervisor callback. And the callback will go the IPI routine >>>>>> which will do an TLB flush. Not necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is all in case of oversubscription of course. In the case where >>>>>> we are fine on vCPU resources it does not matter. >>>>> So then should we keep these two operations (MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI and >>>>> MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULT) available to HVM/PVH guests? If the guest's VCPU >>>>> is not running then TLBs must have been flushed. >>>> While I followed the discussion, it didn't become clear to me what >>>> uses these are for HVM guests considering the separate address >>>> spaces. >>> To avoid unnecessary IPIs to VCPUs that are not currently scheduled (my >>> mistake was that I didn't realize that IPIs to those pCPUs will be >>> filtered out by the hypervisor). >>> >>>> As long as they're useless if called, I'd still favor making >>>> them inaccessible. >>> VCPUs that are scheduled will receive the required flush requests. >> I don't follow - an INVLPG done by the hypervisor won't do any >> flushing for a HVM guest. > > I thought that this would be done with VPID of intended VCPU still > loaded and so INVLPG would flush guest's address? Again - we're talking about separate address spaces here. INVLPG can only act on the current one. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html