All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm: KVM: VFP lazy switch in KVM Host Mode may save upto 98%
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:43:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <559ACC39.7030609@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150705193758.GD3869@cbox>

On 07/05/2015 12:37 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Mario,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:30:25PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> Currently we do a lazy VFP switch in Hyp mode, but once we exit and re-enter hyp
>> mode we trap again on VFP access. This mode has shown around 30-50% improvement
>> running hackbench and lmbench.
>>
>> This patch series extends lazy VFP switch beyond Hyp mode to KVM host mode.
>>
>> 1 - On guest access we switch from host to guest and set a flag accessible to 
>>     host
>> 2 - On exit to KVM host, VFP state is restored on vcpu_put if flag is marked (1)
>> 3 - Otherwise guest is resumed and continues to use its VFP registers. 
>> 4 - In case of 2 on VM entry we set VFP trap flag to repeat 1.
>>
>> If guest does not access VFP registers them implemenation remains the same.
>>
>> Executing hackbench on Fast Models and Exynos arm32 board shows good
>> results. Considering all exits 2% of the time KVM host lazy vfp switch is 
>> invoked.
>>
>> Howeverr this patch set requires more burn in time and testing under various 
>> loads.
>>
>> Currently ARM32 is addressed later ARM64.
>>
> I think Marc said that he experimented with a similar patch once, but
> that it caused corruption on the host side somehow.
> 
> Am I remembering correctly?  If so, we would need to make sure this
> doesn't happen with this patch set...

I think upstreaming the basic approach first (arm64, arm32 cleanups),
and let this series get some good runtime - would be better
and safer approach.


> 
> Otherwise I think this sounds like a fairly good idea and I wonder if
> the same could be done on arm64?

Yes that's the intent, doing both architectures at once would be preferable.

Thanks,
  Mario
> 
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: m.smarduch@samsung.com (Mario Smarduch)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] arm: KVM: VFP lazy switch in KVM Host Mode may save upto 98%
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:43:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <559ACC39.7030609@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150705193758.GD3869@cbox>

On 07/05/2015 12:37 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Mario,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:30:25PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> Currently we do a lazy VFP switch in Hyp mode, but once we exit and re-enter hyp
>> mode we trap again on VFP access. This mode has shown around 30-50% improvement
>> running hackbench and lmbench.
>>
>> This patch series extends lazy VFP switch beyond Hyp mode to KVM host mode.
>>
>> 1 - On guest access we switch from host to guest and set a flag accessible to 
>>     host
>> 2 - On exit to KVM host, VFP state is restored on vcpu_put if flag is marked (1)
>> 3 - Otherwise guest is resumed and continues to use its VFP registers. 
>> 4 - In case of 2 on VM entry we set VFP trap flag to repeat 1.
>>
>> If guest does not access VFP registers them implemenation remains the same.
>>
>> Executing hackbench on Fast Models and Exynos arm32 board shows good
>> results. Considering all exits 2% of the time KVM host lazy vfp switch is 
>> invoked.
>>
>> Howeverr this patch set requires more burn in time and testing under various 
>> loads.
>>
>> Currently ARM32 is addressed later ARM64.
>>
> I think Marc said that he experimented with a similar patch once, but
> that it caused corruption on the host side somehow.
> 
> Am I remembering correctly?  If so, we would need to make sure this
> doesn't happen with this patch set...

I think upstreaming the basic approach first (arm64, arm32 cleanups),
and let this series get some good runtime - would be better
and safer approach.


> 
> Otherwise I think this sounds like a fairly good idea and I wonder if
> the same could be done on arm64?

Yes that's the intent, doing both architectures at once would be preferable.

Thanks,
  Mario
> 
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-06 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-25  3:30 [PATCH 0/3] arm: KVM: VFP lazy switch in KVM Host Mode may save upto 98% Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30 ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm: KVM: define headers and offsets to mange VFP state Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30   ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-05 19:27   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-05 19:27     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-06 17:50     ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-06 17:50       ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm: KVM: Implement lazy VFP switching outside of Hyp Mode Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30   ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-05 19:34   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-05 19:34     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-06 17:54     ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-06 17:54       ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-07 15:27       ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-07 15:27         ` Christoffer Dall
2015-06-25  3:30 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm: KVM: Add VFP lazy switch hooks in Host KVM Mario Smarduch
2015-06-25  3:30   ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-05 19:37   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-05 19:37     ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-06 18:35     ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-06 18:35       ` Mario Smarduch
2015-06-28 17:57 ` [PATCH 0/3] arm: KVM: VFP lazy switch in KVM Host Mode may save upto 98% Mario Smarduch
2015-06-28 17:57   ` Mario Smarduch
2015-07-05 19:37 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-05 19:37   ` Christoffer Dall
2015-07-06 18:43   ` Mario Smarduch [this message]
2015-07-06 18:43     ` Mario Smarduch

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=559ACC39.7030609@samsung.com \
    --to=m.smarduch@samsung.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --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 \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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.