Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/x86/pvh: Use HVM's flush_tlb_others op
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.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> <56702554.6000504@oracle.com>
 <567039EC02000078000BFAE3@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <56702E69.4030503@oracle.com>
 <56703EC802000078000BFB30@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Cc: #@char.us.oracle.com, 3.14+@char.us.oracle.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <567033CF.105@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:37:51 -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: <56703EC802000078000BFB30@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2577
Lines: 53

On 12/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.12.15 at 16:14, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2015 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.12.15 at 15:36, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> So then should we keep these two operations (MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI and
>>>> MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULT) available to HVM/PVH guests? If the guest's VCPU
>>>> is not running then TLBs must have been flushed.
>>> While I followed the discussion, it didn't become clear to me what
>>> uses these are for HVM guests considering the separate address
>>> spaces.
>> To avoid unnecessary IPIs to VCPUs that are not currently scheduled (my
>> mistake was that I didn't realize that IPIs to those pCPUs will be
>> filtered out by the hypervisor).
>>
>>> As long as they're useless if called, I'd still favor making
>>> them inaccessible.
>> VCPUs that are scheduled will receive the required flush requests.
> I don't follow - an INVLPG done by the hypervisor won't do any
> flushing for a HVM guest.

I thought that this would be done with VPID of intended VCPU still 
loaded and so INVLPG would flush guest's address?

-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/