Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178036-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:40:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20240511020557.1198200-1-leobras@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240511020557.1198200-1-leobras@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ZkJsvTH3Nye-TGVa@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kvm: Note an RCU quiescent state on guest exit
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Fri, May 10, 2024, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> As of today, KVM notes a quiescent state only in guest entry, which is good
> as it avoids the guest being interrupted for current RCU operations.
> 
> While the guest vcpu runs, it can be interrupted by a timer IRQ that will
> check for any RCU operations waiting for this CPU. In case there are any of
> such, it invokes rcu_core() in order to sched-out the current thread and
> note a quiescent state.
> 
> This occasional schedule work will introduce tens of microsseconds of
> latency, which is really bad for vcpus running latency-sensitive
> applications, such as real-time workloads.
> 
> So, note a quiescent state in guest exit, so the interrupted guests is able
> to deal with any pending RCU operations before being required to invoke
> rcu_core(), and thus avoid the overhead of related scheduler work.

Are there any downsides to this?  E.g. extra latency or anything?  KVM will note
a context switch on the next VM-Enter, so even if there is extra latency or
something, KVM will eventually take the hit in the common case no matter what.
But I know some setups are sensitive to handling select VM-Exits as soon as possible.

I ask mainly because it seems like a no brainer to me to have both VM-Entry and
VM-Exit note the context switch, which begs the question of why KVM isn't already
doing that.  I assume it was just oversight when commit 126a6a542446 ("kvm,rcu,nohz:
use RCU extended quiescent state when running KVM guest") handled the VM-Entry
case?