[RFC v2 02/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Move cntvoff to each timer context
Jintack Lim
jintack at cs.columbia.edu
Mon Jan 30 10:45:04 PST 2017
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/17 17:58, Jintack Lim wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27 2017 at 01:04:52 AM, Jintack Lim <jintack at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>> Make cntvoff per each timer context. This is helpful to abstract kvm
>>>> timer functions to work with timer context without considering timer
>>>> types (e.g. physical timer or virtual timer).
>>>>
>>>> This also would pave the way for ever doing adjustments of the cntvoff
>>>> on a per-CPU basis if that should ever make sense.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim <jintack at cs.columbia.edu>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 6 +++---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
>>>> include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h | 8 +++-----
>>>> virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> virt/kvm/arm/hyp/timer-sr.c | 3 +--
>>>> 5 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> index d5423ab..f5456a9 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> @@ -60,9 +60,6 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>>>> /* The last vcpu id that ran on each physical CPU */
>>>> int __percpu *last_vcpu_ran;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Timer */
>>>> - struct arch_timer_kvm timer;
>>>> -
>>>> /*
>>>> * Anything that is not used directly from assembly code goes
>>>> * here.
>>>> @@ -75,6 +72,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>>>> /* Stage-2 page table */
>>>> pgd_t *pgd;
>>>>
>>>> + /* A lock to synchronize cntvoff among all vtimer context of vcpus */
>>>> + spinlock_t cntvoff_lock;
>>>
>>> Is there any condition where we need this to be a spinlock? I would have
>>> thought that a mutex should have been enough, as this should only be
>>> updated on migration or initialization. Not that it matters much in this
>>> case, but I wondered if there is something I'm missing.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> /* Interrupt controller */
>>>> struct vgic_dist vgic;
>>>> int max_vcpus;
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> index e505038..23749a8 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>>>> /* Interrupt controller */
>>>> struct vgic_dist vgic;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Timer */
>>>> - struct arch_timer_kvm timer;
>>>> + /* A lock to synchronize cntvoff among all vtimer context of vcpus */
>>>> + spinlock_t cntvoff_lock;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> #define KVM_NR_MEM_OBJS 40
>>>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h b/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
>>>> index daad3c1..1b9c988 100644
>>>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
>>>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
>>>> @@ -23,11 +23,6 @@
>>>> #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>>>> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>>>
>>>> -struct arch_timer_kvm {
>>>> - /* Virtual offset */
>>>> - u64 cntvoff;
>>>> -};
>>>> -
>>>> struct arch_timer_context {
>>>> /* Registers: control register, timer value */
>>>> u32 cnt_ctl;
>>>> @@ -38,6 +33,9 @@ struct arch_timer_context {
>>>>
>>>> /* Active IRQ state caching */
>>>> bool active_cleared_last;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Virtual offset */
>>>> + u64 cntvoff;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct arch_timer_cpu {
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>>> index 6740efa..fa4c042 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>>> @@ -101,9 +101,10 @@ static void kvm_timer_inject_irq_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>> static u64 kvm_timer_compute_delta(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> {
>>>> u64 cval, now;
>>>> + struct arch_timer_context *vtimer = vcpu_vtimer(vcpu);
>>>>
>>>> - cval = vcpu_vtimer(vcpu)->cnt_cval;
>>>> - now = kvm_phys_timer_read() - vcpu->kvm->arch.timer.cntvoff;
>>>> + cval = vtimer->cnt_cval;
>>>> + now = kvm_phys_timer_read() - vtimer->cntvoff;
>>>>
>>>> if (now < cval) {
>>>> u64 ns;
>>>> @@ -159,7 +160,7 @@ bool kvm_timer_should_fire(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> cval = vtimer->cnt_cval;
>>>> - now = kvm_phys_timer_read() - vcpu->kvm->arch.timer.cntvoff;
>>>> + now = kvm_phys_timer_read() - vtimer->cntvoff;
>>>>
>>>> return cval <= now;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -353,10 +354,23 @@ int kvm_timer_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* Make the updates of cntvoff for all vtimer contexts atomic */
>>>> +static void update_vtimer_cntvoff(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 cntvoff)
>>>
>>> Arguably, this acts on the VM itself and not a single vcpu. maybe you
>>> should consider passing the struct kvm pointer to reflect this.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that would be better.
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.cntvoff_lock);
>>>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, vcpu->kvm)
>>>> + vcpu_vtimer(vcpu)->cntvoff = cntvoff;
>>>> + spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.cntvoff_lock);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> void kvm_timer_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> {
>>>> struct arch_timer_cpu *timer = &vcpu->arch.timer_cpu;
>>>>
>>>> + update_vtimer_cntvoff(vcpu, kvm_phys_timer_read());
>>>
>>> Maybe a comment indicating that we recompute CNTVOFF for all vcpus would
>>> be welcome (this is not a change in semantics, but it was never obvious
>>> in the existing code).
>>
>> I'll add a comment. In fact, I was told to make cntvoff synchronized
>> across all the vcpus, but I'm afraid that I understand why. Could you
>> explain me where this constraint comes from?
>
> The virtual counter is the only one a guest can rely on (as the physical
> one is disabled). So we must present to the guest a view of time that is
> uniform across CPUs. If we allow CNTVOFF to vary across CPUs, time
> starts fluctuating when we migrate a process from a vcpu to another, and
> Linux gets *really* unhappy.
Ah, that makes sense to me. Thanks a lot.
>
> An easy fix for this is to make CNTVOFF a VM-global value, ensuring that
> all the CPUs see the same counter values at the same time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list