From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:34:34 +0530 Message-ID: <4FFD79E2.3080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com> <4FFD422B.9060008@redhat.com> <4FFD52CD.7040403@de.ibm.com> <4FFD68AA.1000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FFD68AA.1000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Avi Kivity , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , S390 , Carsten Otte , KVM , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , X86 , Gleb Natapov , linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Joerg Roedel , Christian Ehrhardt List-ID: On 07/11/2012 05:21 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 07/11/2012 03:47 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> On 11/07/12 11:06, Avi Kivity wrote: [...] >>>> So there is no win here, but there are other cases were diag44 is >>>> used, e.g. cpu_relax. >>>> I have to double check with others, if these cases are critical, but >>>> for now, it seems >>>> that your dummy implementation for s390 is just fine. After all it >>>> is a no-op until >>>> we implement something. >>> >>> Does the data structure make sense for you? If so we can move it to >>> common code (and manage it in kvm_vcpu_on_spin()). We can guard it with >>> CONFIG_KVM_HAVE_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT or something, so other archs don't >>> have to pay anything. >> >> Ignoring the name, yes the data structure itself seems based on the >> algorithm >> and not on arch specific things. That should work. > > Ok. can you please elaborate, on the flow. > Ok got it.. Will check how the code can be common to both x86 and s390.