[PATCH v4 12/13] ARM: KVM: vgic: reduce the number of vcpu kick

[Marc Zyngier]

On 05/12/12 12:29, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:17:57PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 05/12/12 10:58, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:43:58AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:45:39PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have level interrupts already programmed to fire on a vcpu,
>>>>> there is no reason to kick it after injecting a new interrupt,
>>>>> as we're guaranteed that we'll exit when the level interrupt will
>>>>> be EOId (VGIC_LR_EOI is set).
>>>>>
>>>>> The exit will force a reload of the VGIC, injecting the new interrupts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <c.dall at virtualopensystems.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h |   10 ++++++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm/kvm/arm.c              |   10 +++++++++-
>>>>>  arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c             |   10 ++++++++--
>>>>>  3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>>>>> index a8e7a93..7d2662c 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>>>>> @@ -215,6 +215,9 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
>>>>>  	u32		vgic_elrsr[2];	/* Saved only */
>>>>>  	u32		vgic_apr;
>>>>>  	u32		vgic_lr[64];	/* A15 has only 4... */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Number of level-triggered interrupt in progress */
>>>>> +	atomic_t	irq_active_count;
>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>  };
>>>>>  
>>>>> @@ -254,6 +257,8 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #define irqchip_in_kernel(k)	(!!((k)->arch.vgic.vctrl_base))
>>>>>  #define vgic_initialized(k)	((k)->arch.vgic.ready)
>>>>> +#define vgic_active_irq(v)	(atomic_read(&(v)->arch.vgic_cpu.irq_active_count) == 0)
>>>>
>>>> When is the atomic_t initialised to zero? I can only see increments.
>>>
>>> I'd question whether an atomic type is correct for this; the only
>>> protection that it's offering is to ensure that the atomic increment
>>> and decrement occur atomically - there's nothing else that they're doing
>>> in this code.
>>>
>>> If those atomic increments and decrements are occuring beneath a common
>>> lock, then using atomic types is just mere code obfuscation.
>>
>> No, they occur on code paths that do not have a common lock (one of them
>> being an interrupt handler). This may change though, after one comment
>> Will made earlier (the thing about delayed interrupts).
>>
>> If these two code sections become mutually exclusive, then indeed there
>> will be no point in having an atomic type anymore.
>>
>>> For example, I'd like to question the correctness of this:
>>>
>>> +               if (vgic_active_irq(vcpu) &&
>>> +                   cmpxchg(&vcpu->mode, EXITING_GUEST_MODE, IN_GUEST_MODE) == EXITING_GUEST_MODE)
>>>
>>> What if vgic_active_irq() reads the atomic type, immediately after it gets
>>> decremented to zero before the cmpxchg() is executed?  Would that be a
>>> problem?
>>
>> I do not think so. If the value gets decremented, it means we took a
>> maintenance interrupt, which means we exited the guest at some point.
>> Two possibilities:
>>
>> - We're not in guest mode anymore (vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE), and
>> cmpxchg will fail, hence signaling the guest to reload its state. This
>> is not needed (the guest will reload its state anyway), but doesn't
>> cause any harm.
> 
> What is the relative ordering of the atomic decrement and setting
> vcpu->mode to be OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE ?  Is there a window where we have
> decremented this atomic type but vcpu->mode is still set to IN_GUEST_MODE.

OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE always occurs first, while interrupts are still
masked in SVC. We then unmask the interrupts, causing the maintenance
interrupt to be handled. Only this handler causes the active count to be
decremented.

>> - We're back into the guest (vcpu->mode = IN_GUEST_MODE), and cmpxchg
>> will fail as well, triggering a reload which is needed this time.
> 
> Well, the whole code looks really weird to me, especially that:
> 
> +       if (kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(vcpu) == IN_GUEST_MODE) {
> +               if (vgic_active_irq(vcpu) &&
> +                   cmpxchg(&vcpu->mode, EXITING_GUEST_MODE, IN_GUEST_MODE) == EXITING_GUEST_MODE)
> +                       return 0;
> +
> +               return 1;
> +       }
> 
> I've no idea what kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode() is (it doesn't exist in
> any tree I have access to)...

You should find it in include/linux/kvm_host.h. It reads:
static inline int kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
        return cmpxchg(&vcpu->mode, IN_GUEST_MODE, EXITING_GUEST_MODE);
}

Admittedly, the whole sequence should be rewritten to be clearer. What
it does is "If we're running a guest and there is no active interrupt,
then kick the guest".

It probably means the above code should read:

if (!vgic_active_irq(vcpu))
        return kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(vcpu) == IN_GUEST_MODE;

return 0;

> In any case, look at the version I converted to spinlocks and see whether
> you think the code looks reasonable in that form.  If it doesn't then it
> isn't reasonable in atomic types either.

I had a look, and I don't find it problematic.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...