From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
gleb@redhat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/8] kvm_para: guest side for eoi avoidance
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:50:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120618145041.GE26540@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FDF3874.2050208@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:17:24PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 04:53 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The idea is simple: there's a bit, per APIC, in guest memory,
> > that tells the guest that it does not need EOI.
> > Guest tests it using a single est and clear operation - this is
> > necessary so that host can detect interrupt nesting - and if set, it can
> > skip the EOI MSR.
> >
> > I run a simple microbenchmark to show exit reduction
> > (note: for testing, need to apply follow-up patch
> > 'kvm: host side for eoi optimization' + a qemu patch
> > I posted separately, on host):
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > index a6983b2..47f9eff 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -28,11 +28,13 @@
> > #if __GNUC__ < 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 1)
> > /* Technically wrong, but this avoids compilation errors on some gcc
> > versions. */
> > -#define BITOP_ADDR(x) "=m" (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT "=m"
> > #else
> > -#define BITOP_ADDR(x) "+m" (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT "+m"
> > #endif
> >
> > +#define BITOP_ADDR(x) BITOP_ADDR_CONSTRAINT (*(volatile long *) (x))
> > +
> > #define ADDR BITOP_ADDR(addr)
>
> What's this doing here?
Ugh. More leftovers from when I had inline asm here.
Will remove.
> >
> > +/* size alignment is implied but just to make it explicit. */
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, kvm_apic_eoi) __aligned(2) =
> > + KVM_PV_EOI_DISABLED;
>
> You're actually breaking the alignment. ulong has 8 byte alignment
> sometimes and you can make it cross cache boundary this way.
No, if you look at the definition of __aligned
you will see that it limits the alignment from below.
Compiler still applies the natural size alignment.
You are not the first to get confused. So I wonder: is it better
to add a comment or simply remove __aligned here.
> > +
> > void __cpuinit kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
> > {
> > if (!kvm_para_available())
> > @@ -300,11 +320,17 @@ void __cpuinit kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
> > smp_processor_id());
> > }
> >
> > + if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI)) {
> > + __get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi) = 0;
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_PV_EOI_EN, __pa(&__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi)) |
> > + KVM_MSR_ENABLED);
>
> Bad formatting.
I guess temporary will make it prettier.
unsigned long pa;
__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi) = 0;
pa = __pa(&__get_cpu_var(kvm_apic_eoi)) | KVM_MSR_ENABLED;
wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_PV_EOI_EN, pa);
or did I miss the point?
> > + }
> > +
> > if (has_steal_clock)
> > kvm_register_steal_time();
> > }
> >
>
>
> Please check that the kexec path also disables pveoi.
The chunk in kvm_pv_guest_cpu_reboot does this, doesn't it?
> --
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-18 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-14 13:52 [PATCHv7 0/8] kvm: eoi optimization support Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:52 ` [PATCHv7 1/8] kvm: document lapic regs field Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 2/8] kvm: optimize ISR lookups Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 3/8] kvm_para: guest side for eoi avoidance Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-18 14:17 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-18 14:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2012-06-18 15:01 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-18 17:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 4/8] x86/bitops: note on __test_and_clear_bit atomicity Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 5/8] kvm: eoi msi documentation Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-18 14:20 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-18 14:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-18 15:03 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-18 16:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-18 15:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 6/8] kvm: only sync when attention bits set Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 7/8] kvm: rearrange injection cancelling code Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-14 13:53 ` [PATCHv7 8/8] kvm: host side for eoi optimization Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120618145041.GE26540@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.