From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/arm64: KVM: Propertly account for guest CPU time
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:04:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150528130421.GE18009@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432817349-17917-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:49:09PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
> interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
> unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
> interrupts doesn't properly notice that the time since the last tick was
> spent in the guest.
>
> Inspired by the comment in the x86 code, simply move the
> kvm_guest_exit() call below the local_irq_enable() call and change
> __kvm_guest_exit() to kvm_guest_exit(), because we are now calling this
> function with interrupts enabled. Note that AFAIU we don't need an
> explicit barrier like x86 because the arm/arm64 implementation of
> local_irq_(en/dis)able has an implicit barrier.
>
> At the same time, move the trace_kvm_exit() call outside of the atomic
> section, since there is no reason for us to do that with interrupts
> disabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on kvm/queue, because it has the kvm_guest_enter/exit
> rework recently posted by Christian Borntraeger. I hope I got the logic
> of this wrong, there were 2 slightly worrying facts about this:
Of course this should have been:
"I hope I got the logic of this *right*, but there..."
Damn it!
-Christoffer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm/arm64: KVM: Propertly account for guest CPU time
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:04:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150528130421.GE18009@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432817349-17917-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:49:09PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
> interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
> unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
> interrupts doesn't properly notice that the time since the last tick was
> spent in the guest.
>
> Inspired by the comment in the x86 code, simply move the
> kvm_guest_exit() call below the local_irq_enable() call and change
> __kvm_guest_exit() to kvm_guest_exit(), because we are now calling this
> function with interrupts enabled. Note that AFAIU we don't need an
> explicit barrier like x86 because the arm/arm64 implementation of
> local_irq_(en/dis)able has an implicit barrier.
>
> At the same time, move the trace_kvm_exit() call outside of the atomic
> section, since there is no reason for us to do that with interrupts
> disabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on kvm/queue, because it has the kvm_guest_enter/exit
> rework recently posted by Christian Borntraeger. I hope I got the logic
> of this wrong, there were 2 slightly worrying facts about this:
Of course this should have been:
"I hope I got the logic of this *right*, but there..."
Damn it!
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-28 12:49 [PATCH] arm/arm64: KVM: Propertly account for guest CPU time Christoffer Dall
2015-05-28 12:49 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-05-28 13:04 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2015-05-28 13:04 ` Christoffer Dall
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=20150528130421.GE18009@cbox \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
/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.