Re: [PATCH 4/5] KVM: add __kvm_request_needs_mb
From: Radim KrÄmÃÅ
Date: Thu Feb 23 2017 - 10:44:26 EST
2017-02-22 20:23+0100, Christian Borntraeger:
> On 02/22/2017 04:17 PM, Radim KrÄmÃÅ wrote:
>> [Oops, the end of this thread got dragged into a mark-as-read spree ...]
>> 2017-02-17 11:13+0100, David Hildenbrand:
>>>>> This is really complicated stuff, and the basic reason for it (if I
>>>>> remember correctly) is that s390x does reenable all interrupts when
>>>>> entering the sie (see kvm-s390.c:__vcpu_run()). So the fancy smp-based
>>>>> kicks don't work (as it is otherwise just racy), and if I remember
>>>>> correctly, SMP reschedule signals (s390x external calls) would be
>>>>> slower. (Christian, please correct me if I'm wrong)
>>>> No the reason was that there are some requests that need to be handled
>>>> outside run SIE. For example one reason was the guest prefix page.
>>>> This must be mapped read/write ALL THE TIME when a guest is running,
>>>> otherwise the host might crash. So we have to exit SIE and make sure that
>>>> it does not reenter, therefore we use the RELOAD_MMU request from a notifier
>>>> that is called from page table functions, whenever memory management decides
>>>> to unmap/write protect (dirty pages tracking, reference tracking, page migration
>>>> or compaction...)
>>>> SMP-based request wills kick out the guest, but for some thing like the
>>>> one above it will be too late.
>>> While what you said is 100% correct, I had something else in mind that
>>> hindered using vcpu_kick() and especially kvm_make_all_cpus_request().
>>> And I remember that being related to how preemption and
>>> OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE is handled. I think this boils down to what would
>>> have to be implemented in kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick().
>>> x86 can track the guest state using vcpu->mode, because they can be sure
>>> that the guest can't reschedule while in the critical guest entry/exit
>>> section. This is not true for s390x, as preemption is enabled. That's
>>> why vcpu->mode cannot be used in its current form to track if a VCPU is
>>> in/oustide/exiting guest mode. And kvm_make_all_cpus_request() currently
>>> relies on this setting.
>>> For now, calling vcpu_kick() on s390x will result in a BUG().
>>> On s390x, there are 3 use cases I see for requests:
>>> 1. Remote requests that need a sync
>>> Make a request, wait until SIE has been left and make sure the request
>>> will be processed before re-entering the SIE. e.g. KVM_REQ_RELOAD_MMU
>>> notifier in mmu notifier you mentioned. Also KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS is a
>> Btw. aren't those requests racy?
>> void exit_sie(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> atomic_or(CPUSTAT_STOP_INT, &vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags);
>> If you get stalled here and the target VCPU handles the request and
>> reenters SIE in the meantime, then you'll wait until its next exit.
>> (And miss an unbounded amount of exits in the worst case.)
>> while (vcpu->arch.sie_block->prog0c & PROG_IN_SIE)
> Its not racy for the purpose it was originally made for (get the vcpu
> out of SIE before we unmap a guest prefix page) as the MMU_RELOAD handler
> will wait for the pte lock which is held by the code that called
> kvm_s390_sync_request(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, vcpu).
> We also have the guarantee that after returning from kvm_s390_sync_request
> we will have that request be handled before we reenter the guest, which is
> all we need for DISABLE_IBS.
> But yes, all non MMU_RELOAD users might wait longer, possibly several guest
> exits. We never noticed that as requests are really a seldom event. Basically
> unmapping of the guest prefix page due to paging and migration, switching
> between 1 and more guest cpus and some other seldom events.
Ok, thanks for the info.
I don't think that we'll find too many use-cases to demand inclusion
into a generic kick/request API, so having a function that waits until a
VCPU is out of guest mode would be more suited for generic code.