From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF47C433F5 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D4F60EB1 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229952AbhJTUOY (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:14:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46410 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230052AbhJTUOY (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:14:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94FC9C061749 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id t21so8880130plr.6 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ZiXG6npJQ40qHjEvArb6k7d15fp/E+O+F6q9OgsTVB0=; b=Bs6oDxIB9/BvVAMg2OuQLkevbXtWhuULIQBz+tqDxlUSrd8RseBFIS63sD5AFUyNFA y6rjUICcdFnVdlmsyhEg/SAVUrRIBjTHT1EPHCFeljsfY9tI0FlqVdePnDs6rspmVybg JprEhH85z/yToGsmQwvLF1iCTVZAsvwJlEk6EXQ0y2k6N6MAHn3qDk2ZgNgQWXr51LTX d9cXEFt49jshq0HZu8G67Bhu+aAKS3raIBigvZVnN1h4i8tMvjNF/rjs6KbJo+PvaCjg yvtpQo6kI09UQQ9P5CuPPjpmXLbxwjO8vGXgr0FkQKwf34SZSsuvldUqskUsGfKS5LfE Y6vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ZiXG6npJQ40qHjEvArb6k7d15fp/E+O+F6q9OgsTVB0=; b=QKk+vBMgIBiyrcS9nQgBbJfTQBZcbO+mLPRExzIHJYB7CUPXOpwC+7A9rHrxQFeCEB 1jbaWeGdazEGvrpu6SptiLLNzQUdQwUE2M/9bYiGm0GLwyQFPsCl+g6FOtjbSmgIR9K1 J1TgUsvaWXK27v/Nqz6mSaiANqBifMHE1BZpP88Jf+d1EQA3DP4zjiJ8dfngJXM1V111 23wsZRPi28aaDyP0I6BF5pLcvpxhrfwOcnrnqrylbCqmjeTN9gahYtW7LBJS8h/5XkGL SLXmxmIo6UyHYV1agrP/u2bYT6Q1P1UpkvUBzsNd+dCF/5ZTmHst07fK5w351Vj9JYjh OLNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bZu/YJEzL5WB31biAmTBUg0AwjG6L3IFg/chAKTZWcOUknn4B KEaK0MSGfArhdQsnJvz7fA1KFwQZwJDAug== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyDHHysLeYQux6u2PjLueuQPGehtUGpIgOL8UuONJAF8k+vkIJxYxeVmC9UGFYJ5fS4AQuYA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a9c3:b0:13f:c765:148d with SMTP id b3-20020a170902a9c300b0013fc765148dmr1191357plr.28.1634760728940; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm3827540pfh.77.2021.10.20.13.12.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:12:04 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Wanpeng Li Cc: zhenwei pi , Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Wanpeng Li , LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm: Introduce boot parameter no-kvm-pvipi Message-ID: References: <20211020120726.4022086-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, Wanpeng Li wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 20:08, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > > Although host side exposes KVM PV SEND IPI feature to guest side, > > guest should still have a chance to disable it. > > > > A typicall case of this parameter: > > If the host AMD server enables AVIC feature, the flat mode of APIC > > get better performance in the guest. > > Hmm, I didn't find enough valuable information in your posting. We > observe AMD a lot before. > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CANRm+Cx597FNRUCyVz1D=B6Vs2GX3Sw57X7Muk+yMpi_hb+v1w@mail.gmail.com/T/#u I too would like to see numbers. I suspect the answer is going to be that AVIC performs poorly in CPU overcommit scenarios because of the cost of managing the tables and handling "failed delivery" exits, but that AVIC does quite well when vCPUs are pinned 1:1 and IPIs rarely require an exit to the host.