Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86/pvh: Use HVM's flush_tlb_others op
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
References: <1449966355-10611-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
 <20151214152713.GC23203@char.us.oracle.com> <566EE1C4.4080204@citrix.com>
Cc: 3.14+@char.us.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, david.vrabel@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, #@char.us.oracle.com
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <566EE708.6010404@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:58:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <566EE1C4.4080204@citrix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2010
Lines: 46

On 12/14/2015 10:35 AM, Roger Pau Monn? wrote:
> El 14/12/15 a les 16.27, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha escrit:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
>>> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
>>>
>> But if the VCPU is asleep, doing it via the hypervisor will save us waking
>> up the guest VCPU, sending an IPI - just to do an TLB flush
>> of that CPU. Which is pointless as the CPU hadn't been running the
>> guest in the first place.

OK, I then mis-read the hypervisor code, I didn't realize that 
vcpumask_to_pcpumask() takes into account vcpu_dirty_cpumask.


>>
>>> More importantly, using MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI may not to invalidate the
>>> guest's address on remote CPU (when, for example, VCPU from another
>>> guest
>>> is running there).
>> Right, so the hypervisor won't even send an IPI there.
>>
>> But if you do it via the normal guest IPI mechanism (which are opaque
>> to the hypervisor) you and up scheduling the guest VCPU to do
>> send an hypervisor callback. And the callback will go the IPI routine
>> which will do an TLB flush. Not necessary.
>>
>> This is all in case of oversubscription of course. In the case where
>> we are fine on vCPU resources it does not matter.
>>
>> Perhaps if we have PV aware TLB flush it could do this differently?
> Why don't HVM/PVH just uses the HVMOP_flush_tlbs hypercall?

It doesn't take any parameters so it will invalidate TLBs for all VCPUs, 
which is more than is being asked for. Especially in the case of 
MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI.

(That's in addition to the fact that it currently doesn't work for PVH 
as it has a test for is_hvm_domain() instead of has_hvm_container_domain()).

-boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/