Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1595929506-9203-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <1595929506-9203-3-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <87k0ymldg9.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87k0ymldg9.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:56:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cx-VM=QGcDNG0oRq7YX+2wmmw8yDjESrJGxTeEWkUUv0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: SVM: Fix disable pause loop exit/pause
 filtering capability on SVM
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 20:21, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> >
> > Commit 8566ac8b (KVM: SVM: Implement pause loop exit logic in SVM) drops
> > disable pause loop exit/pause filtering capability completely, I guess it
> > is a merge fault by Radim since disable vmexits capabilities and pause
> > loop exit for SVM patchsets are merged at the same time. This patch
> > reintroduces the disable pause loop exit/pause filtering capability
> > support.
> >
> > We can observe 2.9% hackbench improvement for a 92 vCPUs guest on AMD
> > Rome Server.
> >
> > Reported-by: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@tencent.com>
> > Tested-by: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@tencent.com>
> > Fixes: 8566ac8b (KVM: SVM: Implement pause loop exit logic in SVM)
> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 9 ++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > index c0da4dd..c20f127 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > @@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ static void init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >       svm->nested.vmcb = 0;
> >       svm->vcpu.arch.hflags = 0;
> >
> > -     if (pause_filter_count) {
> > +     if (pause_filter_count && !kvm_pause_in_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm)) {
> >               control->pause_filter_count = pause_filter_count;
> >               if (pause_filter_thresh)
> >                       control->pause_filter_thresh = pause_filter_thresh;
> > @@ -2693,7 +2693,7 @@ static int pause_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >       struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &svm->vcpu;
> >       bool in_kernel = (svm_get_cpl(vcpu) == 0);
> >
> > -     if (pause_filter_thresh)
> > +     if (!kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> >               grow_ple_window(vcpu);
> >
> >       kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu, in_kernel);
> > @@ -3780,7 +3780,7 @@ static void svm_handle_exit_irqoff(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> >  static void svm_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >  {
> > -     if (pause_filter_thresh)
> > +     if (!kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> >               shrink_ple_window(vcpu);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -3958,6 +3958,9 @@ static void svm_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
> >
> >  static int svm_vm_init(struct kvm *kvm)
> >  {
> > +     if (!pause_filter_thresh)
> > +             kvm->arch.pause_in_guest = true;
>
> Would it make sense to do
>
>         if (!pause_filter_count || !pause_filter_thresh)
>                 kvm->arch.pause_in_guest = true;
>
> here and simplify the condition in init_vmcb()?

kvm->arch.pause_in_guest can also be true when userspace sets the
KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS capability, so we can't simplify the
condition in init_vmcb().

    Wanpeng