lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 04:46:20PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-03-10 00:29+0200, Michael S. Tsirkin:
> > Some guests call mwait without checking the cpu flags. We currently
> > emulate that as a NOP but on VMX we can do better: let guest stop the
> > CPU until timer or IPI. CPU will be busy but that isn't any worse than
> > a NOP emulation.
> >
> > Note that mwait within guests is not the same as on real hardware
> > because you must halt if you want to go deep into sleep.
>
> SDM (25.3 CHANGES TO INSTRUCTION BEHAVIOR IN VMX NON-ROOT OPERATION)
> says that "MWAIT operates normally". What is the reason why MWAIT
> inside VMX cannot reach the same states as MWAIT outside VMX?

If you are going into a deep sleep state with huge latency you are
better off exiting and paying an extra microsecond latency
since a chance some other task will want to schedule seems higher.

> > Thus it isn't
> > a good idea to use the regular MWAIT flag in CPUID for that. Add a flag
> > in the hypervisor leaf instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > ---
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > @@ -594,6 +594,9 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
> > + if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> > + entry->eax = (1 << KVM_FEATURE_MWAIT);
>
> I'd rather not add it as a paravirt feature:
>
> - MWAIT requires the software to provide a target state, but we're not
> doing anything to expose those states.

Current linux guests just discover these states based on
CPU model, so we do expose enough info.

> The feature would need very constrained setup, which is hard to
> support

Why would it? It works without any tweaking on several boxes
I own.

> - we've had requests to support MWAIT emulation for Linux and fully
> emulating MWAIT would be best.
> MWAIT is not going to enabled by default, of course; it would be
> targeted at LPAR-like uses of KVM.

Yes I think this limited emulation is safe to enable by default.
Pretending mwait is equivalent to halt maybe isn't.

> What about keeping just the last hunk to improve OS X, for now?
>
> Thanks.

IMHO if we have a new functionality we are better of creating
some way for guests to discover it is there.
Do we really have to argue about a single bit in HV leaf?
What harm does it do?

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > @@ -3547,13 +3547,9 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
> > CPU_BASED_USE_IO_BITMAPS |
> > CPU_BASED_MOV_DR_EXITING |
> > CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETING |
> > - CPU_BASED_MWAIT_EXITING |
> > - CPU_BASED_MONITOR_EXITING |
> > CPU_BASED_INVLPG_EXITING |
> > CPU_BASED_RDPMC_EXITING;
> >
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "cleared CPU_BASED_MWAIT_EXITING + CPU_BASED_MONITOR_EXITING\n");
> > -
> > opt = CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW |
> > CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS |
> > CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS;
> > --
> > MST

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-13 17:10    [W:0.114 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site