Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-1554-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231214024727.3503870-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
 <ZXsvl7mabUuNkWcY@google.com> <CAO7JXPihjjko6qe8tr6e6UE=L7uSR6AACq1Zwg+7n95s5A-yoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXth7hu7jaHbJZnj@google.com> <CAO7JXPhQ3zPzsNeuUphLx7o_+DOfJrmCoyRXXjcQMEzrKnGc9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXuiM7s7LsT5hL3_@google.com> <CAO7JXPik9eMgef6amjCk5JPeEhg66ghDXowWQESBrd_fAaEsCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXyFWTSU3KRk7EtQ@google.com> <CAO7JXPgH6Z9X5sWXLa_15VMQ-LU6Zy-tArauRowyDNTDWjwA2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXyS5Xw2J6TBQeK3@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZXyS5Xw2J6TBQeK3@google.com>
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:10:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPgKXv0D3XZzFwgLuSpta6Nou0HZMLEjSpYUYnv9FUphnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Dynamic vcpu priority management in kvm
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, 
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	x86@kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, 
	Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>, David Vernet <dvernet@meta.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:54=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google=
.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > > You are basically proposing that KVM bounce-buffer data between guest=
 and host.
> > > I'm saying there's no _technical_ reason to use a bounce-buffer, just=
 do zero copy.
> > >
> > I was also meaning zero copy only. The help required from the kvm side =
is:
> > - Pass the address of the shared memory to bpf programs/scheduler once
> > the guest sets it up.
> > - Invoke scheduler registered callbacks on events like VMEXIT,
> > VEMENTRY, interrupt injection etc. Its the job of guest and host
> > paravirt scheduler to interpret the shared memory contents and take
> > actions.
> >
> > I admit current RFC doesn't strictly implement hooks and callbacks -
> > it calls sched_setscheduler in place of all callbacks that I mentioned
> > above. I guess this was your strongest objection.
>
> Ya, more or less.
>
> > As you mentioned in the reply to Joel, if it is fine for kvm to allow
> > hooks into events (VMEXIT, VMENTRY, interrupt injection etc) then, it
> > makes it easier to develop the ABI I was mentioning and have the hooks
> > implemented by a paravirt scheduler. We shall re-design the
> > architecture based on this for v2.
>
> Instead of going straight to a full blown re-design, can you instead post=
 slightly
> more incremental RFCs?  E.g. flesh out enough code to get a BPF program a=
ttached
> and receiving information, but do NOT wait until you have fully working s=
etup
> before posting the next RFC.
>
Sure, makes sense.

> There are essentially four-ish things to sort out:
>
>  1. Where to insert/modify hooks in KVM
>  2. How KVM exposes KVM-internal information through said hooks
>  3. How a BPF program can influence the host scheduler
>  4. The guest/host ABI
>
> #1 and #2 are largely KVM-only, and I think/hope we can get a rough idea =
of how
> to address them before moving onto #3 and #4 (assuming #3 isn't already a=
 solved
> problem).

Agreed. Will start with the kvm side and keep you posted on the progress.

Thanks,
Vineeth