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;
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:14:50 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>, farman@linux.ibm.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask before sleeping again
Message-ID: <20211020101450.1edbbc1f.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211020080816.69d26708@p-imbrenda>
References: <20211019175401.3757927-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
        <20211019175401.3757927-2-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
        <20211020073515.3ad4c377@p-imbrenda>
        <1641267f-3a23-aba1-ab50-6f7c15e44528@de.ibm.com>
        <20211020080816.69d26708@p-imbrenda>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:08:16 +0200
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> > >> +	clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.gisa_int.kicked_mask);    
> > > 
> > > so, you unconditionally clear the flag, before knowing if the vCPU is
> > > runnable?

Right. I talked about this with  Mimu. It would extend the section
guarded by the bit, and than may be a good thing. Maybe we should
measure that alternative as well.

> > > 
> > > from your description I would have expected to only clear the bit if
> > > the vCPU is not runnable.
> > > 
> > > would things break if we were to try to kick the vCPU again after
> > > clearing the bit, but before dispatching it?    
> > 
> > The whole logic is just an optimization to avoid unnecessary wakeups.
> > When the bit is set a wakup might be omitted.
> > I prefer to do an unneeded wakeup over not doing a wakeup so I think
> > over-clearing is safer.
> > In fact, getting rid of this micro-optimization would be a valid
> > alternative.  
> 
> my only concern was if things would break in case we kick the vCPU
> again after clearing the bit; it seems nothing breaks, so I'm ok with it

I'm not sure about the exact impact of over-waking.
kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup() sets vcpu->valid_wakeup which is I believe used
for some halt poll heuristics. We unset that in
kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish(). If we cleared only conditionally the
protection would extend for that as well. Which would be a good thing.
The statistics stuff in kvm_vcpu_wake_up() does account for already
running, so I see no correctness issues there.

Regards,
Halil