Re: [PATCH v2 14/18] KVM: arm64: spe: Provide guest virtual interrupts for SPE

[Andrew Murray]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:42:02PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2019-12-24 11:50, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 12:07:50PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:30:21 +0000,
> > > Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Upon the exit of a guest, let's determine if the SPE device has
> > > generated
> > > > an interrupt - if so we'll inject a virtual interrupt to the
> > > guest.
> > > >
> > > > Upon the entry and exit of a guest we'll also update the state of
> > > the
> > > > physical IRQ such that it is active when a guest interrupt is
> > > pending
> > > > and the guest is running.
> > > >
> > > > Finally we map the physical IRQ to the virtual IRQ such that the
> > > guest
> > > > can deactivate the interrupt when it handles the interrupt.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/kvm/arm_spe.h |  6 ++++
> > > >  virt/kvm/arm/arm.c    |  5 ++-
> > > >  virt/kvm/arm/spe.c    | 71
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_spe.h b/include/kvm/arm_spe.h
> > > > index 9c65130d726d..91b2214f543a 100644
> > > > --- a/include/kvm/arm_spe.h
> > > > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_spe.h
> > > > @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ static inline bool kvm_arm_support_spe_v1(void)
> > > >  						      ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER_SHIFT);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +void kvm_spe_flush_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > > +inline void kvm_spe_sync_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_arm_spe_v1_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > >  			    struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> > > >  int kvm_arm_spe_v1_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > @@ -49,6 +52,9 @@ int kvm_arm_spe_v1_enable(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu);
> > > >  #define kvm_arm_support_spe_v1()	(false)
> > > >  #define kvm_arm_spe_irq_initialized(v)	(false)
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void kvm_spe_flush_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {}
> > > > +static inline void kvm_spe_sync_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > +
> > > >  static inline int kvm_arm_spe_v1_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > >  					  struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> > > >  {
> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > index 340d2388ee2c..a66085c8e785 100644
> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > @@ -741,6 +741,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> > > >  		preempt_disable();
> > > >
> > > >  		kvm_pmu_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > > +		kvm_spe_flush_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > >
> > > >  		local_irq_disable();
> > > >
> > > > @@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> > > >  		    kvm_request_pending(vcpu)) {
> > > >  			vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> > > >  			isb(); /* Ensure work in x_flush_hwstate is committed */
> > > > +			kvm_spe_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > >  			kvm_pmu_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > >  			if (static_branch_unlikely(&userspace_irqchip_in_use))
> > > >  				kvm_timer_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > > @@ -816,11 +818,12 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> > > >  		kvm_arm_clear_debug(vcpu);
> > > >
> > > >  		/*
> > > > -		 * We must sync the PMU state before the vgic state so
> > > > +		 * We must sync the PMU and SPE state before the vgic state so
> > > >  		 * that the vgic can properly sample the updated state of the
> > > >  		 * interrupt line.
> > > >  		 */
> > > >  		kvm_pmu_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > > +		kvm_spe_sync_hwstate(vcpu);
> > > 
> > > The *HUGE* difference is that the PMU is purely a virtual interrupt,
> > > while you're trying to deal with a HW interrupt here.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >  		/*
> > > >  		 * Sync the vgic state before syncing the timer state because
> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/spe.c b/virt/kvm/arm/spe.c
> > > > index 83ac2cce2cc3..097ed39014e4 100644
> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/spe.c
> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/spe.c
> > > > @@ -35,6 +35,68 @@ int kvm_arm_spe_v1_enable(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu)
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void set_spe_irq_phys_active(struct
> > > arm_spe_kvm_info *info,
> > > > +					   bool active)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int r;
> > > > +	r = irq_set_irqchip_state(info->physical_irq,
> > > IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE,
> > > > +				  active);
> > > > +	WARN_ON(r);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void kvm_spe_flush_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct kvm_spe *spe = &vcpu->arch.spe;
> > > > +	bool phys_active = false;
> > > > +	struct arm_spe_kvm_info *info = arm_spe_get_kvm_info();
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!kvm_arm_spe_v1_ready(vcpu))
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
> > > > +		phys_active = kvm_vgic_map_is_active(vcpu, spe->irq_num);
> > > > +
> > > > +	phys_active |= spe->irq_level;
> > > > +
> > > > +	set_spe_irq_phys_active(info, phys_active);
> > > 
> > > So you're happy to mess with the HW interrupt state even when you
> > > don't have a HW irqchip? If you are going to copy paste the timer
> > > code
> > > here, you'd need to support it all the way (no, don't).
> > > 
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void kvm_spe_sync_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct kvm_spe *spe = &vcpu->arch.spe;
> > > > +	u64 pmbsr;
> > > > +	int r;
> > > > +	bool service;
> > > > +	struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt;
> > > > +	struct arm_spe_kvm_info *info = arm_spe_get_kvm_info();
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!kvm_arm_spe_v1_ready(vcpu))
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	set_spe_irq_phys_active(info, false);
> > > > +
> > > > +	pmbsr = ctxt->sys_regs[PMBSR_EL1];
> > > > +	service = !!(pmbsr & BIT(SYS_PMBSR_EL1_S_SHIFT));
> > > > +	if (spe->irq_level == service)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	spe->irq_level = service;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))) {
> > > > +		r = kvm_vgic_inject_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->vcpu_id,
> > > > +					spe->irq_num, service, spe);
> > > > +		WARN_ON(r);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline bool kvm_arch_arm_spe_v1_get_input_level(int
> > > vintid)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_arm_get_running_vcpu();
> > > > +	struct kvm_spe *spe = &vcpu->arch.spe;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return spe->irq_level;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > This isn't what such a callback is for. It is supposed to sample the
> > > HW, an nothing else.
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > >  static int kvm_arm_spe_v1_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	if (!kvm_arm_support_spe_v1())
> > > > @@ -48,6 +110,7 @@ static int kvm_arm_spe_v1_init(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu)
> > > >
> > > >  	if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm)) {
> > > >  		int ret;
> > > > +		struct arm_spe_kvm_info *info;
> > > >
> > > >  		/*
> > > >  		 * If using the SPE with an in-kernel virtual GIC
> > > > @@ -57,10 +120,18 @@ static int kvm_arm_spe_v1_init(struct
> > > kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  		if (!vgic_initialized(vcpu->kvm))
> > > >  			return -ENODEV;
> > > >
> > > > +		info = arm_spe_get_kvm_info();
> > > > +		if (!info->physical_irq)
> > > > +			return -ENODEV;
> > > > +
> > > >  		ret = kvm_vgic_set_owner(vcpu, vcpu->arch.spe.irq_num,
> > > >  					 &vcpu->arch.spe);
> > > >  		if (ret)
> > > >  			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = kvm_vgic_map_phys_irq(vcpu, info->physical_irq,
> > > > +					    vcpu->arch.spe.irq_num,
> > > > +					    kvm_arch_arm_spe_v1_get_input_level);
> > > 
> > > You're mapping the interrupt int the guest, and yet you have never
> > > forwarded the interrupt the first place. All this flow is only going
> > > to wreck the host driver as soon as an interrupt occurs.
> > > 
> > > I think you should rethink the interrupt handling altogether. It
> > > would
> > > make more sense if the interrupt was actually completely
> > > virtualized. If you can isolate the guest state and compute the
> > > interrupt state in SW (and from the above, it seems that you can),
> > > then you shouldn't mess with the whole forwarding *at all*, as it
> > > isn't designed for devices shared between host and guests.
> > 
> > Yes it's possible to read SYS_PMBSR_EL1_S_SHIFT and determine if SPE
> > wants
> > service. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting on entry/exit to
> > the
> > guest we determine this and inject an interrupt to the guest. As well as
> > removing the kvm_vgic_map_phys_irq mapping to the physical interrupt?
> 
> The mapping only makes sense for devices that have their interrupt
> forwarded to a vcpu, where the expected flow is that the interrupt
> is taken on the host with a normal interrupt handler and then
> injected in the guest (you still have to manage the active state
> though). The basic assumption is that such a device is entirely
> owned by KVM.

Though the mapping does mean that if the guest handles the guest SPE
interrupt it doesn't have to wait for a guest exit before having the
SPE interrupt evaluated again (i.e. another SPE interrupt won't cause
a guest exit) - thus increasing the size of any black hole.


> 
> Here, you're abusing the mapping interface: you don't have an
> interrupt handler (the host SPE driver owns it), the interrupt
> isn't forwarded, and yet you're messing with the active state.
> None of that is expected, and you are in uncharted territory
> as far as KVM is concerned.
> 
> What bothers me the most is that this looks a lot like a previous
> implementation of the timers, and we had all the problems in the
> world to keep track of the interrupt state *and* have a reasonable
> level of performance (hitting the redistributor on the fast path
> is a performance killer).
> 
> > My understanding was that I needed knowledge of the physical SPE
> > interrupt
> > number so that I could prevent the host SPE driver from getting spurious
> > interrupts due to guest use of the SPE.
> 
> You can't completely rule out the host getting interrupted. Even if you set
> PMBSR_EL1.S to zero, there is no guarantee that the host will not observe
> the interrupt anyway (the GIC architecture doesn't tell you how quickly
> it will be retired, if ever). The host driver already checks for this
> anyway.
> 
> What you need to ensure is that PMBSR_EL1.S being set on guest entry
> doesn't immediately kick you out of the guest and prevent forward
> progress. This is why you need to manage the active state.
> 
> The real question is: how quickly do you want to react to a SPE
> interrupt firing while in a guest?
> 
> If you want to take it into account as soon as it fires, then you need
> to eagerly save/restore the active state together with the SPE state on
> each entry/exit, and performance will suffer. This is what you are
> currently doing.
> 
> If you're OK with evaluating the interrupt status on exit, but without
> the interrupt itself causing an exit, then you can simply manage it
> as a purely virtual interrupt, and just deal with the active state
> in load/put (set the interrupt as active on load, clear it on put).

This does feel like the pragmatic approach - a larger black hole in exchange
for performance. I imagine the blackhole would be naturally reduced on
machines with high workloads.

I'll refine the series to take this approach.

> 
> Given that SPE interrupts always indicate that profiling has stopped,

and faults :|

Thanks,

Andrew Murray

> this only affects the size of the black hole, and I'm inclined to do
> the latter.
> 
>         M.
> -- 
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...