From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 8/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Avoid work when userspace iqchips are not used
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:32:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1c2c8e62-364e-d91d-3858-a112e5d0e18a@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171219141857.GB5380@cbox>
On 19/12/17 14:18, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:55:25PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 19/12/17 13:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 08:05:33PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:46:01 +0000,
>>>> Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently check if the VM has a userspace irqchip on every exit from
>>>>> the VCPU, and if so, we do some work to ensure correct timer behavior.
>>>>> This is unfortunate, as we could avoid doing any work entirely, if we
>>>>> didn't have to support irqchip in userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> Realizing the userspace irqchip on ARM is mostly a developer or hobby
>>>>> feature, and is unlikely to be used in servers or other scenarios where
>>>>> performance is a priority, we can use a refcounted static key to only
>>>>> check the irqchip configuration when we have at least one VM that uses
>>>>> an irqchip in userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> On its own, this doesn't seem to be that useful. As far as I can see,
>>>> it saves us a load from the kvm structure before giving up.
>>>
>>> A load and a conditional. But what I really wanted to also avoid was
>>> the function call from the main run loop, which I neglected as well. I
>>> think I can achieve that with a static inline wrapper in the arch timer
>>> header file which first evaluates the static key and then calls into the
>>> arch timer code.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think it
>>>> is more the cumulative effect of this load that could have an impact,
>>>> but you're only dealing with it at a single location.
>>>>
>>>> How about making this a first class helper and redefine
>>>> irqchip_in_kernel as such:
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool irqchip_in_kernel(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>> {
>>>> if (static_branch_unlikely(&userspace_irqchip_in_use) &&
>>>> unlikely(!irqchip_in_kernel(kvm)))
>>>> return true;
>>>>
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and move that static key to a more central location?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a neat idea. The only problem is that creating a new VM would
>>> then flip the static key, and then we'd have to flip it back when a vgic
>>> is created on that VM, and I don't particularly like the idea of doing
>>> this too often.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>>
>>> What I'd suggest then is to have two versions of the function:
>>> irqchip_in_kernel() which is what it is today, and then
>>> __irqchip_in_kernel() which can only be called from within the critical
>>> path of the run loop, so that we can increment the static key on
>>> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init() when we don't have a VGIC.
>>>
>>> How does that sound?
>>
>> OK, you only patch once per non-VGIC VM instead of twice per VGIC VM.
>> But you now create a distinction between what can be used at runtime and
>> what can be used at config time. The distinction is a bit annoying.
>>
>> Also, does this actually show up on the radar?
>>
>
> Honestly, I don't know for this particular version of the patch.
>
> But when I did the VHE optimization work, which was before the userspace
> irqchip support went in, getting rid of calling kvm_timer_sync_hwstate()
> and the load+conditional in there (also prior to the level mapped
> patches), was measurable, between 50 to 100 cycles.
>
> Of course, that turned out to be buggy when rebooting VMs, so I never
> actually included that in my measurements, but it left me wanting to get
> rid of this.
>
> It's a bit of a delicate balance. On the one hand, it's silly to try to
> over-optimize, but on the other hand it's exactly the cumulative effect
> of optimizing every bit that managed to get us good results on VHE.
>
> How about this: I write up the patch in the complicated version as part
> of the next version, and if you think it's too difficult to maintain, we
> can just drop it an apply the series without it?
Sounds like a good plan.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-19 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-13 10:45 [PATCH v8 0/9] Handle forwarded level-triggered interrupts Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Remove redundant preemptible checks Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Factor out functionality to get vgic mmio requester_vcpu Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Don't cache the timer IRQ level Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 19:38 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-12-19 14:17 ` Julien Thierry
2017-12-19 20:35 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Support level-triggered mapped interrupts Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Support a vgic interrupt line level sample function Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:45 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Support VGIC dist pend/active changes for mapped IRQs Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 10:46 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Provide a get_input_level for the arch timer Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 19:45 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-12-13 10:46 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Avoid work when userspace iqchips are not used Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 20:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-12-19 13:34 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-12-19 13:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-12-19 14:18 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-12-19 14:32 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2017-12-13 10:46 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Update timer and forwarded irq documentation Christoffer Dall
2017-12-13 20:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-12-19 20:29 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-12-19 20:35 ` 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=1c2c8e62-364e-d91d-3858-a112e5d0e18a@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox