From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
farman@linux.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask before sleeping again
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:14:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211020101450.1edbbc1f.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211020080816.69d26708@p-imbrenda>
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:08:16 +0200
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> + clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.gisa_int.kicked_mask);
> > >
> > > so, you unconditionally clear the flag, before knowing if the vCPU is
> > > runnable?
Right. I talked about this with Mimu. It would extend the section
guarded by the bit, and than may be a good thing. Maybe we should
measure that alternative as well.
> > >
> > > from your description I would have expected to only clear the bit if
> > > the vCPU is not runnable.
> > >
> > > would things break if we were to try to kick the vCPU again after
> > > clearing the bit, but before dispatching it?
> >
> > The whole logic is just an optimization to avoid unnecessary wakeups.
> > When the bit is set a wakup might be omitted.
> > I prefer to do an unneeded wakeup over not doing a wakeup so I think
> > over-clearing is safer.
> > In fact, getting rid of this micro-optimization would be a valid
> > alternative.
>
> my only concern was if things would break in case we kick the vCPU
> again after clearing the bit; it seems nothing breaks, so I'm ok with it
I'm not sure about the exact impact of over-waking.
kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup() sets vcpu->valid_wakeup which is I believe used
for some halt poll heuristics. We unset that in
kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish(). If we cleared only conditionally the
protection would extend for that as well. Which would be a good thing.
The statistics stuff in kvm_vcpu_wake_up() does account for already
running, so I see no correctness issues there.
Regards,
Halil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-20 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-19 17:53 [PATCH 0/3] fixes for __airqs_kick_single_vcpu() Halil Pasic
2021-10-19 17:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask before sleeping again Halil Pasic
2021-10-19 21:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 5:35 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-10-20 6:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 6:08 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-10-20 8:14 ` Halil Pasic [this message]
2021-10-20 10:42 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-10-20 8:06 ` Michael Mueller
2021-10-20 10:44 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-10-19 17:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: s390: preserve deliverable_mask in __airqs_kick_single_vcpu Halil Pasic
2021-10-19 21:24 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 5:39 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-10-20 8:08 ` Michael Mueller
2021-10-19 17:54 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask if not idle after set Halil Pasic
2021-10-19 21:35 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 5:14 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 7:52 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-26 8:52 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 9:48 ` Michael Mueller
2021-10-20 10:31 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 10:45 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-20 10:52 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 10:51 ` Michael Mueller
2021-10-20 11:04 ` [PATCH 0/3] fixes for __airqs_kick_single_vcpu() Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-20 12:12 ` Halil Pasic
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=20211020101450.1edbbc1f.pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--to=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mimu@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
/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