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 RESEND] KVM: Boosting vCPUs that are delivering interrupts
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
References: <1562915730-9490-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <f95fbf72-090f-fb34-3c20-64508979f251@redhat.com>
 <db74a3a8-290e-edff-10ad-f861c60fbf8e@de.ibm.com>
 <e31024e4-f437-becd-a9e3-e1ea8cd2e0c7@redhat.com>
 <CANRm+Cw43DKqD17U+7-OPX3BmeNBThSe9-uWP2Atob+A0ApzLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc210153-fbae-25d4-bf6b-e31ceef36aa5@redhat.com>
 <CANRm+CxV0c3RSidV_GQtVuQ5fUUCT8vM=5LpodgDg+dFWhkH3w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <f6f9c2ca-6fea-d7b5-9797-d180e42f50d5@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:39:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CxV0c3RSidV_GQtVuQ5fUUCT8vM=5LpodgDg+dFWhkH3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 18/07/19 11:29, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 17:07, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/07/19 10:43, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>> Isnt that done by the sched_in handler?
>>>>
>>>> I am a bit confused because, if it is done by the sched_in later, I
>>>> don't understand why the sched_out handler hasn't set vcpu->preempted
>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>> The s390 commit message is not very clear, but it talks about "a former
>>>> sleeping cpu" that "gave up the cpu voluntarily".  Does "voluntarily"
>>>> that mean it is in kvm_vcpu_block?  But then at least for x86 it would
>>>
>>> see the prepare_to_swait_exlusive() in kvm_vcpu_block(), the task will
>>> be set in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, kvm_sched_out will set
>>> vcpu->preempted to true iff current->state == TASK_RUNNING.
>>
>> Ok, I was totally blind to that "if" around vcpu->preempted = true, it's
>> obvious now.
>>
>> I think we need two flags then, for example vcpu->preempted and vcpu->ready:
>>
>> - kvm_sched_out sets both of them to true iff current->state == TASK_RUNNING
>>
>> - kvm_vcpu_kick sets vcpu->ready to true
>>
>> - kvm_sched_in clears both of them

... and also kvm_vcpu_on_spin should check vcpu->ready.  vcpu->preempted
remains only for use by vmx_vcpu_pi_put.

Later we could think of removing vcpu->preempted.  For example,
kvm_arch_sched_out and kvm_x86_ops->sched_out could get the code
currently in vmx_vcpu_pi_put (testing curent->state == TASK_RUNNING
instead of vcpu->preempted).  But for now there's no need and I'm not
sure it's an improvement at all.

Paolo

>> This way, vmx_vcpu_pi_load can keep looking at preempted only (it
>> handles voluntary preemption in pi_pre_block/pi_post_block).