From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: KVM: x86: move vapic page handling out of fast path
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:05:58 -0300
Message-ID: <20080622170558.GA6587@dmt.cnet>
References: <20080619174347.GA9236@dmt.cnet> <485DDC5B.1020707@qumranet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:49117 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751105AbYFVRGQ (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:06:16 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <485DDC5B.1020707@qumranet.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 08:00:11AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> I fail to see the point of handling the vapic page grab and ref
>> counting in __vcpu_run's heavyweight enter/exit path.
>>
>>   
>
> It's to avoid pinning the page indefinitely.
>
>> So move it to kvm_lapic_set_vapic_addr / kvm_free_lapic time.
>>
>> Other than the obvious improvement for non-Flexpriority case, this      
>> kills a down_read/up_read pair in heavy exits and reduces code size.    
>>   
>
> With mmu notifiers we can do this and still not ping the page:
>
> fast path:
>
>
> if (vapic_addr && !vapic_page)
>    enter_vapic();
>
>
> mmu notifier:
>
> if (gpa == vapic_addr)
>    exit_vapic()
>
>
> So let's wait with this until mmu notifiers are merged.

But what is the point, or advantage, of having the _any_ vapic page
handling in __vcpu_run ? 

The reference for it is grabbed at kvm_lapic_set_vapic_addr() (which
does not take any spinlock, so its safe to swapin the page) and released
at guest exit.

So, what do you have against this patch ?