diff mbox series

[v2,40/43] KVM: VMX: Wake vCPU when delivering posted IRQ even if vCPU == this vCPU

Message ID 20211009021236.4122790-41-seanjc@google.com
State New
Headers show
Series KVM: Halt-polling and x86 APICv overhaul | expand

Commit Message

Sean Christopherson Oct. 9, 2021, 2:12 a.m. UTC
Drop a check that guards triggering a posted interrupt on the currently
running vCPU, and more importantly guards waking the target vCPU if
triggering a posted interrupt fails because the vCPU isn't IN_GUEST_MODE.
The "do nothing" logic when "vcpu == running_vcpu" works only because KVM
doesn't have a path to ->deliver_posted_interrupt() from asynchronous
context, e.g. if apic_timer_expired() were changed to always go down the
posted interrupt path for APICv, or if the IN_GUEST_MODE check in
kvm_use_posted_timer_interrupt() were dropped, and the hrtimer fired in
kvm_vcpu_block() after the final kvm_vcpu_check_block() check, the vCPU
would be scheduled() out without being awakened, i.e. would "miss" the
timer interrupt.

One could argue that invoking kvm_apic_local_deliver() from (soft) IRQ
context for the current running vCPU should be illegal, but nothing in
KVM actually enforces that rules.  There's also no strong obvious benefit
to making such behavior illegal, e.g. checking IN_GUEST_MODE and calling
kvm_vcpu_wake_up() is at worst marginally more costly than querying the
current running vCPU.

Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Paolo Bonzini Oct. 25, 2021, 3:05 p.m. UTC | #1
On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 
> Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
> interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.

It also aligns with SVM a little bit more (especially given patch 35), 
doesn't it?

Paolo
Sean Christopherson Oct. 27, 2021, 3:30 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 
> > Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
> > interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.
> 
> It also aligns with SVM a little bit more (especially given patch 35),
> doesn't it?

Yes, aligning VMX and SVM APICv behavior as much as possible is definitely a goal
of this series, though I suspect I failed to state that anywhere.
Maxim Levitsky Oct. 31, 2021, 10:19 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 15:30 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Lastly, this aligns the non-nested and nested usage of triggering posted
> > > interrupts, and will allow for additional cleanups.
> > 
> > It also aligns with SVM a little bit more (especially given patch 35),
> > doesn't it?
> 
> Yes, aligning VMX and SVM APICv behavior as much as possible is definitely a goal
> of this series, though I suspect I failed to state that anywhere.
> 

Looks reasonable to me.

Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitky
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
index 44d760dde0f9..78c8bc7f1b3b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -4024,8 +4024,7 @@  static int vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
 	 * guaranteed to see PID.ON=1 and sync the PIR to IRR if triggering a
 	 * posted interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE.
 	 */
-	if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu() &&
-	    !kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
+	if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false))
 		kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
 
 	return 0;