From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] KVM: MMU: Optimize guest page table walk
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:51:48 +0900
Message-ID: <20110429225148.49e6e700.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
References: <20110419033220.e527bcae.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
	<20110419033814.3cc7ab5e.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
	<4DAEA123.3020403@redhat.com>
	<m2liyt3hcn.fsf@firstfloor.org>
	<20110429143808.29c51c6a.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
	<20110429065956.GA3985@one.firstfloor.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, mtosatti@redhat.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:47761 "EHLO
	mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757536Ab1D2Nv4 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:51:56 -0400
Received: by pzk9 with SMTP id 9so2158895pzk.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110429065956.GA3985@one.firstfloor.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> > Only I can guess for that reason is the reduction of some function calls
> > by inlining some functions.
> 
> Yes once at a time cfu was inline too and just checked for the right
> sizes and the used g*u, but it got lost in the "icache over everything else" mania which is unfortunately en vogue for quite some time in kernel land (aka 
> measuring patches only based on their impact on the .text
> size, not the actual performance)
> 
> But you might getter better gains by fixing this general
> c*u() regression.
> 

What I mentioned was about not only cfu but 3 functions.

Originally, we were doing the following function calls:

walk_addr_generic()              ---1
  kvm_read_guest_page_mmu()      ---2
    kvm_read_guest_page()        ---3
      copy_from_user()           ---4

And now, with my patch already applied, we are not using
generic kvm_read_guest_page_mmu() and some address
calculations are done in walk_addr_generic():

walk_addr_generic()              ---1'
  get_user()                     ---2'

The length is passed in from walk_addr_generic().

Do you think the following case would not differ so much
from (1' 2') ?

walk_addr_generic()              ---1''
  copy_from_user()               ---2''

This can satisfy your "assuming you pass in a constant length"
and almost same as get_user() ?

Takuya