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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: X86: Implement PV IPIs in linux guest
To:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
References: <1530598891-21370-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <1530598891-21370-3-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <20180719162826.GB11749@flask>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=pbonzini@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsEhBFRCcBIBDqDGsz4K0zZun3jh+U6Z9wNGLKQ0kSFyjN38gMqU1SfP+TUNQepFHb/Gc0E2
 CxXPkIBTvYY+ZPkoTh5xF9oS1jqI8iRLzouzF8yXs3QjQIZ2SfuCxSVwlV65jotcjD2FTN04
 hVopm9llFijNZpVIOGUTqzM4U55sdsCcZUluWM6x4HSOdw5F5Utxfp1wOjD/v92Lrax0hjiX
 DResHSt48q+8FrZzY+AUbkUS+Jm34qjswdrgsC5uxeVcLkBgWLmov2kMaMROT0YmFY6A3m1S
 P/kXmHDXxhe23gKb3dgwxUTpENDBGcfEzrzilWueOeUWiOcWuFOed/C3SyijBx3Av/lbCsHU
 Vx6pMycNTdzU1BuAroB+Y3mNEuW56Yd44jlInzG2UOwt9XjjdKkJZ1g0P9dwptwLEgTEd3Fo
 UdhAQyRXGYO8oROiuh+RZ1lXp6AQ4ZjoyH8WLfTLf5g1EKCTc4C1sy1vQSdzIRu3rBIjAvnC
 tGZADei1IExLqB3uzXKzZ1BZ+Z8hnt2og9hb7H0y8diYfEk2w3R7wEr+Ehk5NQsT2MPI2QBd
 wEv1/Aj1DgUHZAHzG1QN9S8wNWQ6K9DqHZTBnI1hUlkp22zCSHK/6FwUCuYp1zcAEQEAAc0f
 UGFvbG8gQm9uemluaSA8Ym9uemluaUBnbnUub3JnPsLBTQQTAQIAIwUCVEJ7AwIbAwcLCQgH
 AwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEH4VEAzNNmmxNcwOniaZVLsuy1lW/ntYCA0Caz0i
 sHpmecK8aWlvL9wpQCk4GlOX9L1emyYXZPmzIYB0IRqmSzAlZxi+A2qm9XOxs5gJ2xqMEXX5
 FMtUH3kpkWWJeLqe7z0EoQdUI4EG988uv/tdZyqjUn2XJE+K01x7r3MkUSFz/HZKZiCvYuze
 VlS0NTYdUt5jBXualvAwNKfxEkrxeHjxgdFHjYWhjflahY7TNRmuqPM/Lx7wAuyoDjlYNE40
 Z+Kun4/KjMbjgpcF4Nf3PJQR8qXI6p3so2qsSn91tY7DFSJO6v2HwFJkC2jU95wxfNmTEUZc
 znXahYbVOwCDJRuPrE5GKFd/XJU9u5hNtr/uYipHij01WXal2cce1S5mn1/HuM1yo1u8xdHy
 IupCd57EWI948e8BlhpujUCU2tzOb2iYS0kpmJ9/oLVZrOcSZCcCl2P0AaCAsj59z2kwQS9D
 du0WxUs8waso0Qq6tDEHo8yLCOJDzSz4oojTtWe4zsulVnWV+wu70AioemAT8S6JOtlu60C5
 dHgQUD1Tp+ReXpDKXmjbASJx4otvW0qah3o6JaqO79tbDqIvncu3tewwp6c85uZd48JnIOh3
 utBAu684nJakbbvZUGikJfxd887ATQRUQnHuAQgAx4dxXO6/Zun0eVYOnr5GRl76+2UrAAem
 Vv9Yfn2PbDIbxXqLff7oyVJIkw4WdhQIIvvtu5zH24iYjmdfbg8iWpP7NqxUQRUZJEWbx2CR
 wkMHtOmzQiQ2tSLjKh/cHeyFH68xjeLcinR7jXMrHQK+UCEw6jqi1oeZzGvfmxarUmS0uRuf
 fAb589AJW50kkQK9VD/9QC2FJISSUDnRC0PawGSZDXhmvITJMdD4TjYrePYhSY4uuIV02v02
 8TVAaYbIhxvDY0hUQE4r8ZbGRLn52bEzaIPgl1p/adKfeOUeMReg/CkyzQpmyB1TSk8lDMxQ
 zCYHXAzwnGi8WU9iuE1P0wARAQABwsEzBBgBAgAJBQJUQnHuAhsMAAoJEH4VEAzNNmmxp1EO
 oJy0uZggJm7gZKeJ7iUpeX4eqUtqelUw6gU2daz2hE/jsxsTbC/w5piHmk1H1VWDKEM4bQBT
 uiJ0bfo55SWsUNN+c9hhIX+Y8LEe22izK3w7mRpvGcg+/ZRG4DEMHLP6JVsv5GMpoYwYOmHn
 plOzCXHvmdlW0i6SrMsBDl9rw4AtIa6bRwWLim1lQ6EM3PWifPrWSUPrPcw4OLSwFk0CPqC4
 HYv/7ZnASVkR5EERFF3+6iaaVi5OgBd81F1TCvCX2BEyIDRZLJNvX3TOd5FEN+lIrl26xecz
 876SvcOb5SL5SKg9/rCBufdPSjojkGFWGziHiFaYhbuI2E+NfWLJtd+ZvWAAV+O0d8vFFSvr
 iy9enJ8kxJwhC0ECbSKFY+W1eTIhMD3aeAKY90drozWEyHhENf4l/V+Ja5vOnW+gCDQkGt2Y
 1lJAPPSIqZKvHzGShdh8DduC0U3xYkfbGAUvbxeepjgzp0uEnBXfPTy09JGpgWbg0w91GyfT
 /ujKaGd4vxG2Ei+MMNDmS1SMx7wu0evvQ5kT9NPzyq8R2GIhVSiAd2jioGuTjX6AZCFv3ToO
 53DliFMkVTecLptsXaesuUHgL9dKIfvpm+rNXRn9wAwGjk0X/A==
Message-ID: <1357a0b5-0cd8-8cb5-6c61-c9662219bed0@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:47:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180719162826.GB11749@flask>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 19/07/2018 18:28, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> +
>> +	kvm_hypercall3(KVM_HC_SEND_IPI, ipi_bitmap_low, ipi_bitmap_high, vector);
> and
> 
> 	kvm_hypercall3(KVM_HC_SEND_IPI, ipi_bitmap[0], ipi_bitmap[1], vector);
> 
> Still, the main problem is that we can only address 128 APICs.
> 
> A simple improvement would reuse the vector field (as we need only 8
> bits) and put a 'offset' in the rest.  The offset would say which
> cluster of 128 are we addressing.  24 bits of offset results in 2^31
> total addressable CPUs (we probably should even use that many bits).
> The downside of this is that we can only address 128 at a time.
> 
> It's basically the same as x2apic cluster mode, only with 128 cluster
> size instead of 16, so the code should be a straightforward port.
> And because x2apic code doesn't seem to use any division by the cluster
> size, we could even try to use kvm_hypercall4, add ipi_bitmap[2], and
> make the cluster size 192. :)

I did suggest an offset earlier in the discussion.

The main problem is that consecutive CPU ids do not map to consecutive
APIC ids.  But still, we could do an hypercall whenever the total range
exceeds 64.  Something like

u64 ipi_bitmap = 0;
for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)
	if (!ipi_bitmap) {
		min = max = cpu;
	} else if (cpu < min && max - cpu < 64) {
		ipi_bitmap <<= min - cpu;
		min = cpu;
	} else if (id < min + 64) {
		max = cpu < max ? max : cpu;
	} else {
		/* ... send hypercall... */
		min = max = cpu;
		ipi_bitmap = 0;
	}
	__set_bit(ipi_bitmap, cpu - min);
}
if (ipi_bitmap) {
	/* ... send hypercall... */
}

We could keep the cluster size of 128, but it would be more complicated
to do the left shift in the first "else if".  If the limit is 64, you
can keep the two arguments in the hypercall, and just pass 0 as the
"high" bitmap on 64-bit kernels.

Paolo

> But because it is very similar to x2apic, I'd really need some real
> performance data to see if this benefits a real workload.
> Hardware could further optimize LAPIC (apicv, vapic) in the future,
> which we'd lose by using paravirt.
>
> e.g. AMD's acceleration should be superior to this when using < 8 VCPUs
> as they can use logical xAPIC and send without VM exits (when all VCPUs
> are running).
>