From: cohuck@redhat.com (Cornelia Huck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC v3 6/9] KVM: rework kvm_vcpu_on_spin loop
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:24:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170829172439.23fcd6eb.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <debc181e-6517-a8da-7a19-909fda5e4505@redhat.com>
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:06:57 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 21.08.2017 22:35, Radim Kr?m?? wrote:
> > The original code managed to obfuscate a straightforward idea:
> > start iterating from the selected index and reset the index to 0 when
> > reaching the end of online vcpus, then iterate until reaching the index
> > that we started at.
> >
> > The resulting code is a bit better, IMO. (Still horrible, though.)
>
> I think I prefer dropping this patch and maybe _after_ we have the list
> implementation in place, simply start walking the list from
> last_boosted_vcpu? (store a pointer instead of an index then, of course)
>
> If I understand correctly, this would then be simply, one walk from
> last_boosted_vcpu until we hit last_boosted_vcpu again.
Yes, doing this change at this point in the series trades an ugly piece
of code for a slightly less ugly one.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Radim Kr?m?? <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index abd5cb1feb9e..cfb3c0efdd51 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -498,6 +498,19 @@ static inline struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_get_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, int i)
> > (vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx)) != NULL; \
> > idx++)
> >
> > +#define kvm_for_each_vcpu_from(idx, vcpup, from, kvm) \
> > + for (idx = from, vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx); \
> > + vcpup; \
> > + ({ \
> > + idx++; \
> > + if (idx >= atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus)) \
> > + idx = 0; \
> > + if (idx == from) \
> > + vcpup = NULL; \
> > + else \
> > + vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx); \
> > + }))
The loop below is better after the change, but this macro... it gets at
least a bit better if you push this behind patch 8.
> > +
> > static inline struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(struct kvm *kvm, int id)
> > {
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index d89261d0d8c6..33a15e176927 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -2333,8 +2333,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool yield_to_kernel_mode)
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > int last_boosted_vcpu = me->kvm->last_boosted_vcpu;
> > int yielded = 0;
> > - int try = 3;
> > - int pass;
> > + int try = 2;
> > int i;
> >
> > kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(me, true);
> > @@ -2345,34 +2344,24 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool yield_to_kernel_mode)
> > * VCPU is holding the lock that we need and will release it.
> > * We approximate round-robin by starting at the last boosted VCPU.
> > */
> > - for (pass = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded && try; pass++) {
> > - kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > - if (!pass && i <= last_boosted_vcpu) {
> > - i = last_boosted_vcpu;
> > - continue;
> > - } else if (pass && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
> > - break;
> > - if (!ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu->preempted))
> > - continue;
> > - if (vcpu == me)
> > - continue;
> > - if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq) && !kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu))
> > - continue;
> > - if (yield_to_kernel_mode && !kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu))
> > - continue;
> > - if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
> > - continue;
> > + kvm_for_each_vcpu_from(i, vcpu, last_boosted_vcpu, kvm) {
> > + if (!ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu->preempted))
> > + continue;
> > + if (vcpu == me)
> > + continue;
> > + if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq) && !kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu))
> > + continue;
> > + if (yield_to_kernel_mode && !kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu))
> > + continue;
> > + if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
> > + continue;
> >
> > - yielded = kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu);
> > - if (yielded > 0) {
> > - kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
> > - break;
> > - } else if (yielded < 0) {
> > - try--;
> > - if (!try)
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - }
> > + yielded = kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu);
> > + if (yielded > 0) {
> > + kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
> > + break;
> > + } else if (yielded < 0 && !try--)
> > + break;
> > }
> > kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(me, false);
> >
> >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-21 20:35 [PATCH RFC v3 0/9] KVM: allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array Radim Krčmář
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 1/9] KVM: s390: optimize detection of started vcpus Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 7:26 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-22 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 11:23 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-29 12:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 12:42 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-29 11:26 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 2/9] KVM: arm/arm64: fix vcpu self-detection in vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi() Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 11:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 10:00 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 3/9] KVM: remember position in kvm->vcpus array Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 11:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 11:30 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 4/9] KVM: arm/arm64: use locking helpers in kvm_vgic_create() Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 11:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 10:00 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 5/9] KVM: remove unused __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_ALLOC Radim Krčmář
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 6/9] KVM: rework kvm_vcpu_on_spin loop Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 14:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 15:24 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 7/9] KVM: add kvm_free_vcpus and kvm_arch_free_vcpus Radim Krčmář
2017-08-22 14:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-29 13:00 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 8/9] KVM: implement kvm_for_each_vcpu with a list Radim Krčmář
2017-08-29 9:58 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-08-21 20:35 ` [PATCH RFC v3 9/9] KVM: split kvm->vcpus into chunks Radim Krčmář
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=20170829172439.23fcd6eb.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).