From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zheyun Shen <szy0127@sjtu.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: SVM: don't check have_run_cpus in sev_writeback_caches()
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:05:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJpbLX_0WP5jXn7o@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJpXh3dQNZpmUlHL@google.com>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 01:50:15PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Yury Norov wrote:
> > From: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> >
> > Before calling wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask(), the function checks the cpumask
> > for emptiness. It's useless, as the following wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask()
> > ends up with smp_call_function_many_cond(), which handles empty cpumask
> > correctly.
>
> I don't agree that it's useless. The early check avoids disabling/enabling
> preemption (which is cheap, but still), and IMO it makes the KVM code more obviously
> correct. E.g. it takes quite a bit of digging to understand that invoking
> wbnoinvd_on_cpus_mask() with an empty mask is ok/fine.
>
> I'm not completely opposed to this change, but I also don't see the point.
So, there's a tradeoff between useless preemption cycling, which is
O(1) and cpumask_empty(), which is O(N).
I have no measurements that can support one vs another. But the
original patch doesn't discuss it anyhow, as well. So, with the
lack of any information on performance impact, I'd stick with the
version that brings less code.
Agree?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-11 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-11 20:30 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: SVM: fixes for SEV Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: SVM: don't check have_run_cpus in sev_writeback_caches() Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:05 ` Yury Norov [this message]
2025-08-11 21:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:31 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: SVM: drop useless cpumask_test_cpu() in pre_sev_run() Yury Norov
2025-08-11 20:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 21:28 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-11 22:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-14 0:42 ` Yury Norov
2025-08-19 23:11 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM: SVM: fixes for SEV Sean Christopherson
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=aJpbLX_0WP5jXn7o@yury \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=szy0127@sjtu.edu.cn \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.