arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
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.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index 921c1c783bc1..b920cfd10441 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@ -557,6 +557,11 @@ static void __send_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, int vector)
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
+static void kvm_send_ipi(int cpu, int vector)
+{
+ __send_ipi_mask(cpumask_of(cpu), vector);
+}
+
static void kvm_send_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, int vector)
{
__send_ipi_mask(mask, vector);
@@ -628,6 +633,7 @@ late_initcall(setup_efi_kvm_sev_migration);
*/
static __init void kvm_setup_pv_ipi(void)
{
+ apic_update_callback(send_IPI, kvm_send_ipi);
apic_update_callback(send_IPI_mask, kvm_send_ipi_mask);
apic_update_callback(send_IPI_mask_allbutself, kvm_send_ipi_mask_allbutself);
pr_info("setup PV IPIs\n");
--
2.45.0On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:25 PM Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> wrote: > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > > 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. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> I think a question here is are we able to see performance improvement in any kind of setup? Thanks
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@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> >> >> 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. With IPI virtualization enabled, *unicast* and physical-addressing IPIs won't cause a VM-exit. Instead, the microcode posts interrupts directly to the target vCPU. The PV version always causes a VM-exit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> > >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. > >Thanks > >
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:01 PM Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com> 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@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>
> >
> >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.
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
> >
> >
>
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@intel.com> 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@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
>> >>
>> >> 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@redhat.com>
>> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>
>> >
>> >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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, Chao Gao wrote: > 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@intel.com> 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@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > >> >> > >> >> 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). xAPIC will have two exits: ICR2 and then ICR. If xAPIC vs. x2APIC is stable when kvm_setup_pv_ipi() runs, maybe key off of that? > >> 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. FWIW, I doubt _all_ multi-cast IPIs outperform IPI virtualization. My guess is there's a threshold in the number of targets where the cost of sending multiple virtual IPIs becomes more expensive than the VM-Exit and software processing, and I assume/hope that threshold isn't '2'. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > >> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> > >> > > >> >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. TDX doesn't need a PV approach. Or rather, TDX already has an "architectural" PV approach. Make a TDVMCALL to request emulation of WRMSR(ICR). Don't plumb more KVM logic into it.
>> >> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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). > >xAPIC will have two exits: ICR2 and then ICR. ah, yes. >If xAPIC vs. x2APIC is stable when >kvm_setup_pv_ipi() runs, maybe key off of that? But the guest doesn't know if APICv is enabled or even IPI virtualization is enabled. > >> >> 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. > >FWIW, I doubt _all_ multi-cast IPIs outperform IPI virtualization. My guess is >there's a threshold in the number of targets where the cost of sending multiple >virtual IPIs becomes more expensive than the VM-Exit and software processing, >and I assume/hope that threshold isn't '2'. Yes. Determining the threshold is tricky, and it's likely not a constant value across different CPU generations. > >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> >> >> >> Tested-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> >> >> > >> >> >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. > >TDX doesn't need a PV approach. Or rather, TDX already has an "architectural" >PV approach. Make a TDVMCALL to request emulation of WRMSR(ICR). Don't plumb >more KVM logic into it. Agree. It should be an optimization for TDX guests, regardless of the underlying hypervisor.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, Chao Gao wrote: > >> >> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > >If xAPIC vs. x2APIC is stable when > >kvm_setup_pv_ipi() runs, maybe key off of that? > > But the guest doesn't know if APICv is enabled or even IPI virtualization > is enabled. Oh yeah, duh. Given that KVM emulates x2APIC irrespective of hardware support, and that Linux leans heavily towards x2APIC (thanks MMIO stale data!), my vote is to leave things as they are.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.