qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i386: hvf: In kick_vcpu use hv_vcpu_interrupt to force e


From: Phil Dennis-Jordan
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] i386: hvf: In kick_vcpu use hv_vcpu_interrupt to force exit
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2023 21:29:51 +0200


On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 21:19, Roman Bolshakov <roman@roolebo.dev> wrote:
> I assume that's with patch 3/3 applied as well? The fact you've
> repro'd it with just these patch would explain why I've not been able
> to fix it on the APIC side…
>

Yes, I applied with patch 3/3 and then retested only with the first two
patches.

OK, interesting that it would happen without patch 3 as well.
 
> > FWIW. I recall a few years ago I submitted a similar patch that does
> > something similar but addresses a few more issues:
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20200729124832.79375-1-r.bolshakov@yadro.com/
> >
> > I don't remember why it never got merged.
> >
>
> Looks like the VM kick might be a more complex undertaking than I was
> anticipating. I'll try to repro the problem you ran into, and then look
> over your original patch and make sense of it. Hopefully an updated version
> of your 'kick' implementation will work well in combination with the
> newer hv_vcpu_run_until() API from patch 3/3. I'll keep you posted.
>

Apparently I left a note that some interrupts weren't delivered even
with my patch and I was not able figure out the reason back then. I had
another attempt to debug this two weeks later after I submitted v4 and I
can find a WIP branch on github where I added a Debug Registers support
patch and some tracepoints:

https://github.com/qemu/qemu/compare/master...roolebo:qemu:hvf-debug-kick

Perhaps that's where we should start from besides the obvious need of
rebase.

Sounds good, I'll take a look at those changes and try to work out what to do next.
 
With regards to hv_vcpu_run_until() I can find the following thread:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg09468.html

> hv_vcpu_run_until() was also evaluated on macOS 10.15.5 but it degrades
> VM performance significantly compared to explicit setting of
> VMX-preepmtion timer value and hv_vcpu_run(). The performance issue was
> observed on Broadwell-based MacBook Air and Ivy Bridge-based MacBook
> Pro.
>
> macOS 11.0 Beta deprecated hv_vcpu_run() and introduced a special
> declaration for hv_vcpu_run_until(), that's not available 10.15 -
> HV_DEADLINE_FOREVER (UINT64_MAX, which is bigger than maximum value of
> VMX-preeemption counter). Perhaps the performance issue is addressed
> there.

All discussion with Paolo might be helpful, particurlarly:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg09893.html

> So, I've tried Big Sur Beta and it has exactly the same performance
> issue with hv_vcpu_run_until() while hv_vcpu_run() works as good as it
> worked on 10.15.5. I've submitted FB7827341 to Apple wrt the issue.

In November 2020, Apple responded to FB7827341 that there's an issue on
QEMU side.

Hmm, that's interesting. I'll need to work my way through that thread, but I'll point out that in my testing with SMP guests, I measured a performance *improvement* with the hv_vcpu_run_until() API (and the forever deadline) versus hv_vcpu_run(), as it significantly reduced BQL contention - with so many VMEXITs, vCPU threads were spending a lot of time waiting for the lock.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]