From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: Execute WBINVD to keep data consistency
 with assigned devices
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:07:30 +0300
Message-ID: <4C285842.3060406@redhat.com>
References: <1277696187-3571-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <201006281456.05750.sheng@linux.intel.com> <4C284A88.9000303@redhat.com> <201006281541.25302.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Yaozu (Eddie) Dong" <eddie.dong@intel.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40032 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754602Ab0F1IHf (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:07:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <201006281541.25302.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 06/28/2010 10:41 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>
>> Hm, the manual says (regarding clflush):
>>      
>>> Invalidates the cache line that contains the linear address specified
>>> with the source
>>> operand from all levels of the processor cache hierarchy (data and
>>> instruction). The
>>> invalidation is broadcast throughout the cache coherence domain. If,
>>> at any level of
>>> the cache hierarchy, the line is inconsistent with memory (dirty) it
>>> is written to
>>> memory before invalidation.
>>>        
>> So I don't think you need to queue_work_on(), instead you can work in
>> vcpu thread context.  But better check with someone that really knows.
>>      
> Yeah, I've just checked the instruction as well. For it would be boardcasted,
> seems we even don't need(and can't have) a dirty bitmap. So the overhead on the
> large machine should be big.
>
> And I've calculated the times we need to execute clflush for whole guest memory. If
> I calculate it right, for a 64bit guest, clflush can only cover 64 bytes one time,
> so for a typical 4G guest, we would need to execute the command for 4G / 64 = 64M
> times. The cycles used by clflush can be vary, suppose it would use 10 cycles each
> (which sounds impossible, for involving boardcast and writeback, and not including
> cache refill time for all processors), it would cost more than 0.2 seconds one time
> on an 3.2Ghz machine...
>    

Right, so clflush can't be made to work.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function