Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <324a8c3a-35f1-ad4b-1ff5-9ba742778470@redhat.com>
References: <1517813878-22248-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <324a8c3a-35f1-ad4b-1ff5-9ba742778470@redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:26:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzUJg7ZozjBmZV1mQNNDtkL479k+LsQ81++i7GPUbEh2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: X86: Add per-VM no-HLT-exiting capability
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-02-14 0:02 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>:
> On 05/02/2018 07:57, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
>>
>> If host CPUs are dedicated to a VM, we can avoid VM exits on HLT.
>> This patch adds the per-VM non-HLT-exiting capability.
>>
>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2:
>>  * vmx_clear_hlt() around INIT handling
>>  * vmx_clear_hlt() upon SMI and implement auto halt restart
>
> Hi Wanpeng,
>
> sorry I could not answer before.
>
> We do not need to implement AutoHalt.  It's a messy functionality and
> the way it works is much simpler: on RSM the microcode reads AutoHALT's
> bit 0 and... decrements RIP if it is 1.  All you need to do however is
> clear the activity state.  Guests should expect anyway that "CLI;HLT"
> can be interrupted by an NMI and follow it with a JMP.

Thanks for pointing out.

>
> Second, I would prefer to implement at the same time MWAIT and PAUSE
> passthrough, as in https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg159517.html:

Understand.

>
>> The three capabilities are more or less all doing the same thing.
>> Perhaps it would make some sense to only leave PAUSE spin loops in
>> guest, but not HLT/MWAIT; but apart from that I think users would
>> probably enable all of them.  So I think we should put in the
>> documentation that blindly passing the KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION result to
>> KVM_ENABLE_CAP is a valid thing to do when vCPUs are associated to
>> dedicated physical CPUs.
>>
>> Let's get rid of KVM_CAP_X86_GUEST_MWAIT altogether and
>> add a new capability.  But let's use just one.
>
> Thanks again for your work, and sorry for slightly contradicting Radim's
> review.  I've rebased and applied patch 2.

No problem. You and Radim's review is always appreciated and helpful.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li