From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: nVMX: Fully support of nested VMX preemption
 timer
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:44:46 +0300
Message-ID: <20130916104446.GN17294@redhat.com>
References: <1378433091-18233-1-git-send-email-yzt356@gmail.com>
 <5233481F.8060606@redhat.com>
 <20130916074422.GG17294@redhat.com>
 <5236C824.8090700@redhat.com>
 <20130916090911.GL17294@redhat.com>
 <5236D434.8000605@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Arthur Chunqi Li <yzt356@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	jan.kiszka@web.de, yang.z.zhang@intel.com
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11101 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753380Ab3IPKow (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:44:52 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5236D434.8000605@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:49:40AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 16/09/2013 11:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:58:12AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>>>  	vmx->__launched = vmx->loaded_vmcs->launched;
> >>>>> +	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && !(vmx->nested.nested_vmx_exit))
> >>>>> +		nested_adjust_preemption_timer(vcpu);
> >>>>
> >>>> Please leave the assignment to __launched last, since it's already
> >>>> initializing the asm below.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't like the is_guest_mode check here... Maybe it's
> >>>> micro-optimizing, but I wonder if we already do too many checks in
> >>>> vmx_vcpu_run...  For example, is_guest_mode could be changed (I think)
> >>>> to a check for "vmx->loaded_vmcs == &vmx->vmcs1".
> >>>>
> >>> Why this will be more efficient that HF_GUEST_MASK check?
> >>
> >> Because we have already loaded vmx->loaded_vmcs, so it's one memory
> >> access less.
> >>
> > But we will have to load vmx->vmcs1 instead :)
> 
> That's not a memory load, it's an add.
> 
You assume that vmx->loaded_vmcs and vmx will be both in registers here,
isn't it too much to assume?

--
			Gleb.