Re: [PATCH v7] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance

[Avi Kivity]

On 01/07/2012 04:55 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> From: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Currently, vcpu will be destructed only after kvm instance is
> destroyed. This result to vcpu keep idle in kernel, but can not
> be freed when it is unplugged in guest.
>
> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST

Must?

> and CAN be destroyed before kvm instance. By this way, we can remove
> vcpu when guest does not need it any longer.
>
> TODO: push changes to other archs besides x86.
>
> -Rename kvm_vcpu_zap to kvm_vcpu_destruct and so on.

kvm_vcpu_destroy.

>  
>  struct kvm_vcpu {
>  	struct kvm *kvm;
> +	struct list_head list;

vcpu_list_link, so it's clear this is not a head but a link, and so we
know which list it belongs to.

> -	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
> +	struct list_head vcpus;

This has the potential for a slight performance regression by bouncing
an extra cache line, but it's acceptable IMO.  We can always introduce
an apic ID -> vcpu hash table which improves things all around.

> |
> @@ -1593,11 +1598,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>  {
>  	struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> -	int last_boosted_vcpu = me->kvm->last_boosted_vcpu;
> -	int yielded = 0;
> -	int pass;
> -	int i;
> -
> +	struct task_struct *task = NULL;
> +	struct pid *pid;
> +	int pass, firststart, lastone, yielded, idx;

Avoid unrelated changes please.

> @@ -1605,15 +1608,26 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>  	 * VCPU is holding the lock that we need and will release it.
>  	 * We approximate round-robin by starting at the last boosted VCPU.
>  	 */
> -	for (pass = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded; pass++) {
> -		kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> -			struct task_struct *task = NULL;
> -			struct pid *pid;
> -			if (!pass && i < last_boosted_vcpu) {
> -				i = last_boosted_vcpu;
> +	for (pass = 0, firststart = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded; pass++) {
> +
> +		idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);

Can move the lock to the top level.

> +		kvm_for_each_vcpu(vcpu, kvm) {
> +			if (kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id < 0 && !pass) {
> +				pass = 1;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +			if (!pass && !firststart &&
> +			    vcpu->vcpu_id != kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id) {
> +				continue;
> +			} else if (!pass && !firststart) {
> +				firststart = 1;
>  				continue;
> -			} else if (pass && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
> +			} else if (pass && !lastone) {
> +				if (vcpu->vcpu_id == kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id)
> +					lastone = 1;
> +			} else if (pass && lastone)
>  				break;
> +

Seems like a large change.  Is this because the vcpu list is unordered? 
Maybe it's better to order it.

Rik?

>  			if (vcpu == me)
>  				continue;
>  			if (waitqueue_active(&vcpu->wq))
> @@ -1629,15 +1643,20 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>  				put_task_struct(task);
>  				continue;
>  			}
> +
>  			if (yield_to(task, 1)) {
>  				put_task_struct(task);
> -				kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
> +				mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +				kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
> +				mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);

Why take the mutex?

> @@ -1673,11 +1692,30 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void kvm_vcpu_destruct(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	kvm_arch_vcpu_destruct(vcpu);
> +}
> +
>  static int kvm_vcpu_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = filp->private_data;
> +	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> +	filp->private_data = NULL;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +	list_del_rcu(&vcpu->list);
> +	atomic_dec(&kvm->online_vcpus);
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +	synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);

Why _expedited?

Even better would be call_srcu() but it doesn't exist.

I think we can actually use regular rcu.  The only user that blocks is
kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), yes? so we can convert the vcpu to a task using
get_pid_task(), then, outside the rcu lock, call yield_to().


>  
> -	kvm_put_kvm(vcpu->kvm);
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +	if (kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id == vcpu->vcpu_id)
> +		kvm->last_boosted_vcpu_id = -1;
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +
> +	/*vcpu is out of list,drop it safely*/
> +	kvm_vcpu_destruct(vcpu);

Can all kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() directly.

> +static struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_vcpu_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 id)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +	vcpu = kvm_arch_vcpu_create(kvm, id);
> +	if (IS_ERR(vcpu))
> +		return vcpu;
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vcpu->list);

Really needed?

> +	return vcpu;
> +}

Just fold this into the caller.

> +
>  /*
>   * Creates some virtual cpus.  Good luck creating more than one.
>   */
>  static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, u32 id)
>  {
> -	int r;
> +	int r, idx;
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, *v;
>  
> -	vcpu = kvm_arch_vcpu_create(kvm, id);
> +	vcpu = kvm_vcpu_create(kvm, id);
>  	if (IS_ERR(vcpu))
>  		return PTR_ERR(vcpu);
>  
> @@ -1723,13 +1771,15 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, u32 id)
>  		goto unlock_vcpu_destroy;
>  	}
>  
> -	kvm_for_each_vcpu(r, v, kvm)
> +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> +	kvm_for_each_vcpu(v, kvm) {
>  		if (v->vcpu_id == id) {
>  			r = -EEXIST;
> +			srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);

Put that in the error path please (add a new label if needed).

>  			goto unlock_vcpu_destroy;

>  
> -	kvm->vcpus[atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus)] = vcpu;
> -	smp_wmb();
> +	/*Protected by kvm->lock*/

Spaces.

> +	list_add_rcu(&vcpu->list, &kvm->vcpus);
>  	atomic_inc(&kvm->online_vcpus);
 


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/