All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>
Cc: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>,
	Lizixian <lizixian@hisilicon.com>,
	jiayanlei@huawei.com, fanhenglong@huawei.com,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Question about KVM on arm64] Consider putting VINVALL to deactivation
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:50:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <37126a877e1160ed50ee6d95a03d1574@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf470803-8e1c-d1c3-d5ac-731536196543@hisilicon.com>

Hi Shaokun,

On 2020-01-14 14:20, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On activation, VMAPP command is followed by a VINVALL, which could be
> quite expensive for the start-up of virtual machine. If a vpeid is 
> allowed
> successfully, it is not used in system.

How expensive? This is exactly similar to what happens on a physical 
machine
where we perform an INVALL on MAPC. And yet you don't complain about 
that.

Please provide numbers.

> We may consider put VINVALL to deactivation to ensure all cache of 
> certain
> vpeid is invalid, to simplify activation. We consider start-up may be 
> more
> common and more time-consuming-sensitive than shutdown process.

In my world, they cost the same thing, and happen just as often. Also, I 
want
guarantees that on VMAPP, there is no stale information even if this is 
the
first time we're using this VPEid (who knows what happens over kexec, 
for
example).

> Do you think it's all right?

I don't, for the reasons stated above. You also provide no numbers 
showing
how bad the overhead is, so I'm left guessing.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>
Cc: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>,
	Lizixian <lizixian@hisilicon.com>,
	jiayanlei@huawei.com, fanhenglong@huawei.com,
	"Tangnianyao \(ICT\)" <tangnianyao@huawei.com>,
	wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Question about KVM on arm64] Consider putting VINVALL to deactivation
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:50:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <37126a877e1160ed50ee6d95a03d1574@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf470803-8e1c-d1c3-d5ac-731536196543@hisilicon.com>

Hi Shaokun,

On 2020-01-14 14:20, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On activation, VMAPP command is followed by a VINVALL, which could be
> quite expensive for the start-up of virtual machine. If a vpeid is 
> allowed
> successfully, it is not used in system.

How expensive? This is exactly similar to what happens on a physical 
machine
where we perform an INVALL on MAPC. And yet you don't complain about 
that.

Please provide numbers.

> We may consider put VINVALL to deactivation to ensure all cache of 
> certain
> vpeid is invalid, to simplify activation. We consider start-up may be 
> more
> common and more time-consuming-sensitive than shutdown process.

In my world, they cost the same thing, and happen just as often. Also, I 
want
guarantees that on VMAPP, there is no stale information even if this is 
the
first time we're using this VPEid (who knows what happens over kexec, 
for
example).

> Do you think it's all right?

I don't, for the reasons stated above. You also provide no numbers 
showing
how bad the overhead is, so I'm left guessing.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-15 13:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-14 14:20 [Question about KVM on arm64] Consider putting VINVALL to deactivation Shaokun Zhang
2020-01-14 14:20 ` Shaokun Zhang
2020-01-15 13:50 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2020-01-15 13:50   ` Marc Zyngier
2020-01-16  6:21   ` Shaokun Zhang
2020-01-16  6:21     ` Shaokun Zhang

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=37126a877e1160ed50ee6d95a03d1574@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=fanhenglong@huawei.com \
    --cc=jiayanlei@huawei.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lizixian@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=wangwudi@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=zhangshaokun@hisilicon.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.