[RFC PATCH] KVM: Only register preempt notifiers and load arch cpu state as needed

[Christoffer Dall]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/23/2017 06:06 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 05:17:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 23/11/2017 17:05, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> For example,
> >>> arm64 is about to do significant work in vcpu load/put when running a
> >>> vcpu, but not when doing things like KVM_SET_ONE_REG or
> >>> KVM_SET_MP_STATE.
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, in what circumstances are these ioctls a hot path?
> >> Especially KVM_SET_MP_STATE.
> >>
> > 
> > Perhaps my commit message was misleading; we only want to do that for
> > KVM_RUN, and not for anything else.  We're already doing things like
> > potentially jumping to hyp mode and flushing VMIDs which really
> > shouldn't be done unless we actually plan on running a VCPU, and we're
> > going to do things like setting up the timer to handle timer interrupts
> > in an ISR, which doesn't make sense unless the VCPU is running.
> > 
> > Add to that, that loading an entire VM's state onto hardware, only to
> > read back a single register from hardware and returning it to user
> > space, doesn't really fall within optimization vs. non-optimization in
> > the critical path, but is just wrong, IMHO.
> > 
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Drew suggested this as an alternative approach to recording the ioctl
> >>> number on the vcpu struct [1] as it may benefit other architectures in
> >>> general.
> >>>
> >>> I had a look at some of the specific ioctls across architectures, but
> >>> must admit that I can't easily tell which architecture specific logic
> >>> relies on having registered preempt notifiers and having called the
> >>> architecture specific load function.
> >>>
> >>> It would be great if you would let me know if you think this is
> >>> generally useful or if you prefer the less invasive approach, and in
> >>> case this is useful, if you could have a look at all the vcpu ioctls for
> >>> your architecture and let me know if I am being too loose or too
> >>> careful in calling __vcpu_load() in this patch.
> >>
> >> I can suggest a third approach:
> >>
> >>         if (ioctl == KVM_GET_ONE_REG || ioctl == KVM_SET_ONE_REG)
> >>                 return kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl(filp, ioctl, arg);
> >>
> >> in kvm_vcpu_ioctl before "r = vcpu_load(vcpu);", or even better:
> >>
> >>         if (ioctl == KVM_GET_ONE_REG)
> >> 		// call kvm_arch_vcpu_get_one_reg_ioctl(vcpu, &reg);
> >> 		// and do copy_to_user
> >> 		return kvm_vcpu_get_one_reg_ioctl(vcpu, arg);
> >>         if (ioctl == KVM_SET_ONE_REG)
> >> 		// do copy_from_user then call
> >> 		// kvm_arch_vcpu_set_one_reg_ioctl(vcpu, &reg);
> >> 		return kvm_vcpu_set_one_reg_ioctl(vcpu, arg);
> >>
> >> so that the kvm_arch_vcpu_get/set_one_reg_ioctl functions are called
> >> without the lock.
> >>
> >> Then all architectures except ARM can be switched to do
> >> vcpu_load/vcpu_put in kvm_arch_vcpu_get/set_one_reg_ioctl
> > 
> > That doesn't solve my need as I want to *only* do the arch vcpu_load for
> > KVM_RUN, I should have been more clear in the commit message.
> 
> What about splitting arch_vcpu_load/put into two callbacks and call the 2nd
> one only for VCPU_run? e.g. keep arch_vcpu_load and add arch_vcpu_load_run
> and arch_vcpu_unload_run
> 
> Then every architecture can move things from arch_vcpu_load into arch_vcpu_load_run
> if its only necessary for RUN.
> 
Unfortunately that doesn't work because the preempt notifiers don't know
which of the two functions they should call.

Thanks,
-Christoffer