Re: [PATCH v1] kvm: x86: implement PV send_IPI method
From: Chao Gao
Date: Fri Jul 18 2025 - 08:19:56 EST
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 07:15:37PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:01 PM Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 03:52:30PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:25 PM Cindy Lu <lulu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> We used to have PV version of send_IPI_mask and
>> >> send_IPI_mask_allbutself. This patch implements PV send_IPI method to
>> >> reduce the number of vmexits.
>>
>> It won't reduce the number of VM-exits; in fact, it may increase them on CPUs
>> that support IPI virtualization.
>
>Sure, but I wonder if it reduces the vmexits when there's no APICV or
>L2 VM. I thought it can reduce the 2 vmexits to 1?
Even without APICv, there is just 1 vmexit due to APIC write (xAPIC mode)
or MSR write (x2APIC mode).
>
>>
>> With IPI virtualization enabled, *unicast* and physical-addressing IPIs won't
>> cause a VM-exit.
>
>Right.
>
>> Instead, the microcode posts interrupts directly to the target
>> vCPU. The PV version always causes a VM-exit.
>
>Yes, but it applies to all PV IPI I think.
For multi-cast IPIs, a single hypercall (PV IPI) outperforms multiple ICR
writes, even when IPI virtualization is enabled.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >I think a question here is are we able to see performance improvement
>> >in any kind of setup?
>>
>> It may result in a negative performance impact.
>
>Userspace can check and enable PV IPI for the case where it suits.
Yeah, we need to identify the cases. One example may be for TDX guests, using
a PV approach (TDVMCALL) can avoid the #VE cost.
>
>For example, HyperV did something like:
>
>void __init hv_apic_init(void)
>{
> if (ms_hyperv.hints & HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED) {
> pr_info("Hyper-V: Using IPI hypercalls\n");
> /*
> * Set the IPI entry points.
> */
> orig_apic = *apic;
>
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI, hv_send_ipi);
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI_mask, hv_send_ipi_mask);
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI_mask_allbutself,
>hv_send_ipi_mask_allbutself);
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI_allbutself,
>hv_send_ipi_allbutself);
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI_all, hv_send_ipi_all);
> apic_update_callback(send_IPI_self, hv_send_ipi_self);
>}
>
>send_IPI_mask is there.
>
>Thanks
>
>>
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >
>>
>