From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "mihai.caraman@freescale.com" <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:55:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <539B10DF.6070509@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <306b1e4daa2f4441aaef7c7383b484fc@BY2PR03MB508.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
invalidates?
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "mihai.caraman@freescale.com" <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:55:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <539B10DF.6070509@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <306b1e4daa2f4441aaef7c7383b484fc@BY2PR03MB508.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
invalidates?
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "mihai.caraman@freescale.com" <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:55:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <539B10DF.6070509@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <306b1e4daa2f4441aaef7c7383b484fc@BY2PR03MB508.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
invalidates?
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-13 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-12 14:00 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule Mihai Caraman
2014-06-12 14:00 ` Mihai Caraman
2014-06-12 14:00 ` Mihai Caraman
2014-06-12 17:04 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-12 17:04 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-12 17:04 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-13 14:43 ` mihai.caraman
2014-06-13 14:43 ` mihai.caraman
2014-06-13 14:55 ` Alexander Graf [this message]
2014-06-13 14:55 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-13 14:55 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-13 19:42 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-13 19:42 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-13 19:42 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-17 9:08 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-17 9:08 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-17 9:08 ` Alexander Graf
2014-06-17 12:00 ` mihai.caraman
2014-06-17 12:00 ` mihai.caraman
2014-06-17 12:00 ` mihai.caraman
2014-06-17 15:33 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-17 15:33 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-17 15:33 ` Scott Wood
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=539B10DF.6070509@suse.de \
--to=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mihai.caraman@freescale.com \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.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.