From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: Parallel access faults
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:54:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86a648mlh2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221129191946.1735662-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:19:42 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> When I implemented the parallel faults series I was mostly focused on
> improving the performance of 8.1+ implementations which bring us
> FEAT_HAFDBS. In so doing, I failed to put access faults on the read side
> of the MMU lock.
>
> Anyhow, this small series adds support for handling access faults in
> parallel, piling on top of the infrastructure from the first parallel
> faults series. As most large systems I'm aware of are 8.1+ anyway, I
> don't expect this series to provide significant uplift beyond some
> oddball machines Marc has lying around. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to
> have a D05 to play with too...
Hey, that puts the whole fruity range of machines in the oddball
department too, as they don't implement any of HAFDBS!
The feature being optional, I wouldn't be surprised if others would
either not implement it (or disable it to hide that it is b0rk3n...).
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
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: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: Parallel access faults
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:54:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86a648mlh2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20221130165433.EDCHpurTnjHm55e7wf2YzZCoJ7LnbXs2HVtjLVfM9R4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221129191946.1735662-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:19:42 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> When I implemented the parallel faults series I was mostly focused on
> improving the performance of 8.1+ implementations which bring us
> FEAT_HAFDBS. In so doing, I failed to put access faults on the read side
> of the MMU lock.
>
> Anyhow, this small series adds support for handling access faults in
> parallel, piling on top of the infrastructure from the first parallel
> faults series. As most large systems I'm aware of are 8.1+ anyway, I
> don't expect this series to provide significant uplift beyond some
> oddball machines Marc has lying around. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to
> have a D05 to play with too...
Hey, that puts the whole fruity range of machines in the oddball
department too, as they don't implement any of HAFDBS!
The feature being optional, I wouldn't be surprised if others would
either not implement it (or disable it to hide that it is b0rk3n...).
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: Parallel access faults
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:54:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86a648mlh2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221129191946.1735662-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:19:42 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> When I implemented the parallel faults series I was mostly focused on
> improving the performance of 8.1+ implementations which bring us
> FEAT_HAFDBS. In so doing, I failed to put access faults on the read side
> of the MMU lock.
>
> Anyhow, this small series adds support for handling access faults in
> parallel, piling on top of the infrastructure from the first parallel
> faults series. As most large systems I'm aware of are 8.1+ anyway, I
> don't expect this series to provide significant uplift beyond some
> oddball machines Marc has lying around. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to
> have a D05 to play with too...
Hey, that puts the whole fruity range of machines in the oddball
department too, as they don't implement any of HAFDBS!
The feature being optional, I wouldn't be surprised if others would
either not implement it (or disable it to hide that it is b0rk3n...).
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-30 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-29 19:19 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: Parallel access faults Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: arm64: Use KVM's pte type/helpers in handle_access_fault() Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: arm64: Don't serialize if the access flag isn't set Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 20:52 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 20:52 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 20:52 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 21:15 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 21:15 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 21:15 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-30 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-30 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-30 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-30 8:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-30 8:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-30 8:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-30 23:21 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-30 23:21 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-30 23:21 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-01 18:11 ` Oliver Upton
2022-12-01 18:11 ` Oliver Upton
2022-12-01 18:11 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: arm64: Handle access faults behind the read lock Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 21:00 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 21:00 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 21:00 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-11-29 19:19 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: arm64: Condition HW AF updates on config option Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-29 19:19 ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-30 16:54 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-11-30 16:54 ` [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: Parallel access faults Marc Zyngier
2022-11-30 16:54 ` Marc Zyngier
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=86a648mlh2.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
/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.