kvm: x86: do not use KVM_REQ_EVENT for APICv interrupt injection
Since bf9f6ac8 ("KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU is blocked", 2015-09-18) the posted interrupt descriptor is checked unconditionally for PIR.ON. Therefore we don't need KVM_REQ_EVENT to trigger the scan and, if NMIs or SMIs are not involved, we can avoid the complicated event injection path. Calling kvm_vcpu_kick if PIR.ON=1 is also useless, though it has been there since APICv was introduced. However, without the KVM_REQ_EVENT safety net KVM needs to be much more careful about races between vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt and vcpu_enter_guest. First, the IPI for posted interrupts may be issued between setting vcpu->mode = IN_GUEST_MODE and disabling interrupts. If that happens, kvm_trigger_posted_interrupt returns true, but smp_kvm_posted_intr_ipi doesn't do anything about it. The guest is entered with PIR.ON, but the posted interrupt IPI has not been sent and the interrupt is only delivered to the guest on the next vmentry (if any). To fix this, disable interrupts before setting vcpu->mode. This ensures that the IPI is delayed until the guest enters non-root mode; it is then trapped by the processor causing the interrupt to be injected. Second, the IPI may be issued between kvm_x86_ops->sync_pir_to_irr(vcpu) and vcpu->mode = IN_GUEST_MODE. In this case, kvm_vcpu_kick is called but it (correctly) doesn't do anything because it sees vcpu->mode == OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE. Again, the guest is entered with PIR.ON but no posted interrupt IPI is pending; this time, the fix for this is to move the RVI update after IN_GUEST_MODE. Both issues were mostly masked by the liberal usage of KVM_REQ_EVENT, though the second could actually happen with VT-d posted interrupts. In both race scenarios KVM_REQ_EVENT would cancel guest entry, resulting in another vmentry which would inject the interrupt. This saves about 300 cycles on the self_ipi_* tests of vmexit.flat. Signed-off-by: NPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录