[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] SVM: re-work VMCB sync-ing


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:34:34 -0400
  • Autocrypt: addr=boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFH8CgsBEAC0KiOi9siOvlXatK2xX99e/J3OvApoYWjieVQ9232Eb7GzCWrItCzP8FUV PQg8rMsSd0OzIvvjbEAvaWLlbs8wa3MtVLysHY/DfqRK9Zvr/RgrsYC6ukOB7igy2PGqZd+M MDnSmVzik0sPvB6xPV7QyFsykEgpnHbvdZAUy/vyys8xgT0PVYR5hyvhyf6VIfGuvqIsvJw5 C8+P71CHI+U/IhsKrLrsiYHpAhQkw+Zvyeml6XSi5w4LXDbF+3oholKYCkPwxmGdK8MUIdkM d7iYdKqiP4W6FKQou/lC3jvOceGupEoDV9botSWEIIlKdtm6C4GfL45RD8V4B9iy24JHPlom woVWc0xBZboQguhauQqrBFooHO3roEeM1pxXjLUbDtH4t3SAI3gt4dpSyT3EvzhyNQVVIxj2 FXnIChrYxR6S0ijSqUKO0cAduenhBrpYbz9qFcB/GyxD+ZWY7OgQKHUZMWapx5bHGQ8bUZz2 SfjZwK+GETGhfkvNMf6zXbZkDq4kKB/ywaKvVPodS1Poa44+B9sxbUp1jMfFtlOJ3AYB0WDS Op3d7F2ry20CIf1Ifh0nIxkQPkTX7aX5rI92oZeu5u038dHUu/dO2EcuCjl1eDMGm5PLHDSP 0QUw5xzk1Y8MG1JQ56PtqReO33inBXG63yTIikJmUXFTw6lLJwARAQABzTNCb3JpcyBPc3Ry b3Zza3kgKFdvcmspIDxib3Jpcy5vc3Ryb3Zza3lAb3JhY2xlLmNvbT7CwXgEEwECACIFAlH8 CgsCGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEIredpCGysGyasEP/j5xApopUf4g 9Fl3UxZuBx+oduuw3JHqgbGZ2siA3EA4bKwtKq8eT7ekpApn4c0HA8TWTDtgZtLSV5IdH+9z JimBDrhLkDI3Zsx2CafL4pMJvpUavhc5mEU8myp4dWCuIylHiWG65agvUeFZYK4P33fGqoaS VGx3tsQIAr7MsQxilMfRiTEoYH0WWthhE0YVQzV6kx4wj4yLGYPPBtFqnrapKKC8yFTpgjaK jImqWhU9CSUAXdNEs/oKVR1XlkDpMCFDl88vKAuJwugnixjbPFTVPyoC7+4Bm/FnL3iwlJVE qIGQRspt09r+datFzPqSbp5Fo/9m4JSvgtPp2X2+gIGgLPWp2ft1NXHHVWP19sPgEsEJXSr9 tskM8ScxEkqAUuDs6+x/ISX8wa5Pvmo65drN+JWA8EqKOHQG6LUsUdJolFM2i4Z0k40BnFU/ kjTARjrXW94LwokVy4x+ZYgImrnKWeKac6fMfMwH2aKpCQLlVxdO4qvJkv92SzZz4538az1T m+3ekJAimou89cXwXHCFb5WqJcyjDfdQF857vTn1z4qu7udYCuuV/4xDEhslUq1+GcNDjAhB nNYPzD+SvhWEsrjuXv+fDONdJtmLUpKs4Jtak3smGGhZsqpcNv8nQzUGDQZjuCSmDqW8vn2o hWwveNeRTkxh+2x1Qb3GT46uzsFNBFH8CgsBEADGC/yx5ctcLQlB9hbq7KNqCDyZNoYu1HAB Hal3MuxPfoGKObEktawQPQaSTB5vNlDxKihezLnlT/PKjcXC2R1OjSDinlu5XNGc6mnky03q yymUPyiMtWhBBftezTRxWRslPaFWlg/h/Y1iDuOcklhpr7K1h1jRPCrf1yIoxbIpDbffnuyz kuto4AahRvBU4Js4sU7f/btU+h+e0AcLVzIhTVPIz7PM+Gk2LNzZ3/on4dnEc/qd+ZZFlOQ4 KDN/hPqlwA/YJsKzAPX51L6Vv344pqTm6Z0f9M7YALB/11FO2nBB7zw7HAUYqJeHutCwxm7i BDNt0g9fhviNcJzagqJ1R7aPjtjBoYvKkbwNu5sWDpQ4idnsnck4YT6ctzN4I+6lfkU8zMzC gM2R4qqUXmxFIS4Bee+gnJi0Pc3KcBYBZsDK44FtM//5Cp9DrxRQOh19kNHBlxkmEb8kL/pw XIDcEq8MXzPBbxwHKJ3QRWRe5jPNpf8HCjnZz0XyJV0/4M1JvOua7IZftOttQ6KnM4m6WNIZ 2ydg7dBhDa6iv1oKdL7wdp/rCulVWn8R7+3cRK95SnWiJ0qKDlMbIN8oGMhHdin8cSRYdmHK kTnvSGJNlkis5a+048o0C6jI3LozQYD/W9wq7MvgChgVQw1iEOB4u/3FXDEGulRVko6xCBU4 SQARAQABwsFfBBgBAgAJBQJR/AoLAhsMAAoJEIredpCGysGyfvMQAIywR6jTqix6/fL0Ip8G jpt3uk//QNxGJE3ZkUNLX6N786vnEJvc1beCu6EwqD1ezG9fJKMl7F3SEgpYaiKEcHfoKGdh 30B3Hsq44vOoxR6zxw2B/giADjhmWTP5tWQ9548N4VhIZMYQMQCkdqaueSL+8asp8tBNP+TJ PAIIANYvJaD8xA7sYUXGTzOXDh2THWSvmEWWmzok8er/u6ZKdS1YmZkUy8cfzrll/9hiGCTj u3qcaOM6i/m4hqtvsI1cOORMVwjJF4+IkC5ZBoeRs/xW5zIBdSUoC8L+OCyj5JETWTt40+lu qoqAF/AEGsNZTrwHJYu9rbHH260C0KYCNqmxDdcROUqIzJdzDKOrDmebkEVnxVeLJBIhYZUd t3Iq9hdjpU50TA6sQ3mZxzBdfRgg+vaj2DsJqI5Xla9QGKD+xNT6v14cZuIMZzO7w0DoojM4 ByrabFsOQxGvE0w9Dch2BDSI2Xyk1zjPKxG1VNBQVx3flH37QDWpL2zlJikW29Ws86PHdthh Fm5PY8YtX576DchSP6qJC57/eAAe/9ztZdVAdesQwGb9hZHJc75B+VNm4xrh/PJO6c1THqdQ 19WVJ+7rDx3PhVncGlbAOiiiE3NOFPJ1OQYxPKtpBUukAlOTnkKE6QcA4zckFepUkfmBV1wM Jg6OxFYd01z+a+oL
  • Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 03 May 2018 18:32:03 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 05/03/2018 10:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.05.18 at 16:45, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 03:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 30.04.18 at 19:50, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 04/30/2018 01:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On 30/04/18 12:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> While the main problem to be addressed here is the issue of what so far
>>>>>> was named "vmcb_in_sync" starting out with the wrong value (should have
>>>>>> been true instead of false, to prevent performing a VMSAVE without ever
>>>>>> having VMLOADed the vCPU's state), go a step further and make the
>>>>>> sync-ed state a tristate: CPU and memory may be in sync or an update
>>>>>> may be required in either direction. Rename the field and introduce an
>>>>>> enum. Callers of svm_sync_vmcb() now indicate the intended new state
>>>>>> (with a slight "anomaly" when requesting VMLOAD: we could store
>>>>>> vmcb_needs_vmsave in those cases as the callers request, but the VMCB
>>>>>> really is in sync at that point, and hence there's no need to VMSAVE in
>>>>>> case we don't make it out to guest context), and all syncing goes
>>>>>> through that function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that, there's no need to VMLOAD the state perhaps multiple times;
>>>>>> all that's needed is loading it once before VM entry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v2: Also handle VMLOAD in svm_sync_vmcb(). Add comment to enum
>>>>>>     vmcb_sync_state.
>>>>> -1 from me.  This is even more confusing to use than v1.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not obvious at all that using svm_sync_vmcb(v, vmcb_needs_vmsave);
>>>>> means "vmload", and its actively wrong that the state doesn't remain
>>>>> in-sync.
>>>> It does become in-sync:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +    if ( new_state == vmcb_needs_vmsave )
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        ASSERT(arch_svm->vmcb_sync_state == vmcb_needs_vmload);
>>>> +        svm_vmload(arch_svm->vmcb);
>>>> +        arch_svm->vmcb_sync_state = vmcb_in_sync;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +    else
>>>>
>>>> (although Jan is questioning whether to drop that change in the comments 
>>>> to 
>>>> patch 2, if I understood him correctly)
>>> Indeed - in patch 2 this could be made go away. Hence the posting of patch 2
>>> at this point in time in the first place (otherwise I would have waited 
>> until 4.12
>>> has opened).
>>>
>>> In any event - I need some sort of indication of a way forward here.
>> I think the extra optimization that you suggested in patch 2 would make
>> things a bit less obvious so I'd be inclined not to do that (but maybe a
>> comment in svm_sync_vmcb() that we are doing it only for clarity might
>> be useful.)
> Hmm, interesting. To me it would seem to improve things.
>
>> I also see a point in Andrew's observation that vmcb_needs_vmsave
>> implying a vmload may not be not immediately obvious so if he feels
>> strongly about that I will be OK with going back to v1.
> How that? Switching to vmcb_needs_vmload also implies a VMSAVE, after
> all (if none has happened before).


Hmm.. Right. I don't know why it appeared less than obvious to me then
when I looked at it last time.

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.