From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
"kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Make virtual processor area registration more robust
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:19:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10F7042F-3E8C-485D-AF5F-7B6441CADC66@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120117113140.GA9093@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On 17.01.2012, at 12:31, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:27:26AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>=20
>> The thing I was getting at was not the map during the lifetime, but
>> the map during registration. Currently we have:
>>=20
>> 1) Set VPA to x
>> 2) Assign feature y to VPA
>> 3) Use VPA
>>=20
>> 1 and 2 are the slow path, 3 occurs more frequently. So we want 3 to
>> be fast. 1 and 2 don't matter that much wrt performance.
>>=20
>> You are currently mapping the VPA at /, which gets you into this
>> map/unmap mess trying to free the previous mapping. If you moved the
>> map to step 2 and only stored the GPA at step 1, all map+unmap
>> operations except for final unmaps would be in one spot, so you
>> wouldn't need to construct this big complex state machine.
>=20
> That might simplify things - I'll try it and see. The worry with
> doing the map/pin at 2 is that if anything goes wrong we no longer
> have the opportunity to return an error for the H_REGISTER_VPA call,
> so I'll have to at least do some checking in 1, leading to possibly
> more code overall.
Well, then map and unmap it in step 1 and map it in step 2 again. We're =
in the slow path so performance isn't critical. Readability and =
maintainability however are :)
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-17 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-20 10:21 [RFC PATCH 0/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Report stolen time to guests Paul Mackerras
2011-12-20 10:22 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Make virtual processor area registration more robust Paul Mackerras
2012-01-16 13:04 ` Alexander Graf
2012-01-17 5:56 ` Paul Mackerras
2012-01-17 9:27 ` Alexander Graf
2012-01-17 11:31 ` Paul Mackerras
2012-01-17 12:19 ` Alexander Graf [this message]
2011-12-20 10:37 ` [KVM PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Report stolen time to guest through dispatch trace log Paul Mackerras
2012-01-16 13:11 ` Alexander Graf
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=10F7042F-3E8C-485D-AF5F-7B6441CADC66@suse.de \
--to=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.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).