[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/4] KVM: Add flush_on_enter before guest enter
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:15:06AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 11:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 01:49:47AM -0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> @@ -2887,7 +2899,7 @@ static void kvm_steal_time_set_preempted(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> if (!(vcpu-> & KVM_MSR_ENABLED))
> >> return;
> >>
> >> - vcpu-> = KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED;
> >> + vcpu-> |= KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED;
> >
> > I don't understand this one... If there is concurrency its wrong, if
> > there is no concurrency it still doesn't make sense as there should not
> > be any FLUSH flags to preserve..
> There is no concurrency, foreign VCPUs are not going to write to the
> location unless PREEMPTED is set. So indeed the "|=" is pointless.
> However, I wonder if it'd be useful for a VCPU to set the bit _on
> itself_ before going to sleep. Like
> hlt
> /* Automagic TLB flush! */
> This would not work currently, but if it *is* useful, we should make it
> work and document it as legal. Peter, do you think it would make any sense?

Almost but not quite I think.. So there is no guarantee HLT (or even
MWAIT with a state that has CPUILDE_FLAG_TLB_FLUSHED set) will actually
do the TLB flush.

And if we preempt the vCPU to run a kernel thread we will not in fact
invalidate the TLBs either.

Also, you're confusing the SHOULD_FLUSH with the HAS_FLUSHED concept.
Because if we didn't flush and we should have we should still issue it

So if we could somehow tell if a HLT or preemption did indeed flush the
TLBs post fact (reading back the attained C state is possible but really
rather expensive IIRC), then we could set a HAS_FLUSHED flag and avoid
issuing when SHOULD_FLUSH is also set.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-10 11:31    [W:0.031 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site